Change ticket state

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (which only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint): it discloses an auth requirement ('Requires an API key'), a side effect ('notify the people involved'), and the state-dependent rejection rules. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs before committing to a mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then the auth requirement, then the failure conditions. No filler and nothing restated from the title or schema.

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?

Covers the action, side effect, auth, and rejection rules for a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, which is nearly everything the agent needs. It does not describe the response shape or what happens if the ticket is already in the requested state, a minor gap given idempotentHint.

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, but the description adds real meaning to the enum values: 'new' is create-only and rejected, and 'closed'/'invalid' are API-locked. That constrains which of the eight enum values are actually reachable targets.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Move a ticket to another workflow state', which is distinctly a transition operation rather than a general edit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like update_ticket, so an agent must infer that this is the state-machine-specific tool.

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?

Gives concrete exclusions: 'new' is rejected here, and tickets in 'closed' or 'invalid' reject edits, so the agent knows two cases where the call will fail. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those cases or stating prerequisites beyond the API key.

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