update_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Patch' implies partial mutation, but the description doesn't state whether the full object is required, whether fields are additive/patch-style, or how the operation interacts with existing data. No mention of auth, reversibility, or effects on related entities.

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 a single efficient sentence with no waste, but it lists 'payment' which conflicts with actual schema parameter names, adding minor confusion. Concise but slightly inaccurate.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It doesn't explain the 'patch' semantics, which parameters map to which behavior, required vs optional handling, unique constraints (e.g., ticket_id uuid format), or any side effects. No return/shape info provided.

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 0%, meaning no parameters are described. The description lists several field names (title, description, status, due_at, payment) but 'payment' doesn't map to any actual schema parameter (schema has 'amount' and 'payment_status'). This loose mapping plus 0% schema coverage means parameters are inadequately documented.

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?

Description names specific verb+resource ('Patch ticket fields') and enumerates the primary mutable fields. It's a clear purpose statement but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'create_ticket' or 'move_ticket', relying on the verb 'patch' to imply update semantics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_ticket or move_ticket. The field list provides some context (update existing tickets), but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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