ora_ticket_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the actions (close/reopen) and optional comment, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the ticket (e.g., if a comment triggers notifications). More transparency is needed for a mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is too short. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, permission requirements, and the effect on the ticket beyond the state change.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new parameter details beyond summarizing the actions and comment. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 updates the status of a GitHub ticket (close/reopen) and can add a comment. It uses a specific verb ('Met a jour') and resource ('statut d'un ticket GitHub'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ora_ticket_get and ora_ticket_list which are read-only.

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 implies usage for closing/reopening tickets with optional comments, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ora_ticket_update vs. another tool) or mention prerequisites or when not to use.

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