teamleader_tickets_update

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects, but it only says 'Update', which is a mutation hint. It does not disclose permissions, partial-update behavior, or return value, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, and no filler. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 a simple 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is understandable for basic use. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral details (e.g., whether fields are overwritten, response shape) leaves some gaps.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with individual descriptions (ID, subject, status ID) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema by linking 'subject or status' to the action.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('ticket') and names the mutable fields ('subject or status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tickets_create or tickets_add_message.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this versus alternatives; it only states what the tool does. The context implies use for modifying existing ticket fields, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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