update_ticket

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation, and the description aligns with this. It adds the behavioral detail that parameters must be top-level rather than nested, which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects like replacing existing lists, though individual schema descriptions cover those.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the purpose and captures the essential usage nuance without any fluff, making every word earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (35 parameters), the description is minimal but sufficient because the schema provides full parameter documentation. It adds the critical non-schema instruction about top-level parameters, and the destructiveHint annotation covers safety. No output schema exists, but return behavior is not essential for an update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by instructing agents to pass each property as a top-level parameter and explicitly forbidding the nested 'fields' object, with examples (Due, Status, Owner). This is valuable for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing ticket.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from 'create_ticket', 'add_comment', and other sibling tools. It also adds usage instruction about top-level parameters, further clarifying its scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Update an existing ticket', implying use when modifying existing entities, and explicitly instructs to pass properties as top-level parameters and avoid the nested 'fields' object. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.