Update ticket

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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint and idempotentHint; the description carries the real behavioral load by disclosing partial-update semantics ('only the given fields are touched'), the no-op rejection rule, the null-to-unassign convention, and the hard lock on closed/invalid tickets. These are exactly the mutation hazards an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what can be changed, then the invariants, then the sibling pointer. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is editable, how partial updates behave, how to unassign, which states are locked, and where to go for state transitions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by spelling out the partial-update contract (unspecified fields are left alone) and restating the null-unassign behavior for assigneeUserId. It does not add format or range detail beyond the schema, so it sits just above baseline.

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 ('change') plus the exact editable field set (title, content, type, priority, assignee) on a named resource. It distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by explicitly delegating workflow state changes to set_ticket_state, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (set_ticket_state) and the condition that selects it ('workflow state'), and states when the API will not accept the call at all (no-op updates, tickets in closed or invalid state). Both the when-to-use and when-not conditions are explicit.

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