glpi_atualizar_chamado

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

Description adds key behavioral trait: 'Guarda o estado anterior para reversão' (keeps previous state for reversal). Since no annotations are provided, description carries burden; it addresses reversion but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Some value added beyond 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with action. No filler or redundant text. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple update tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, description covers the basic action and revert behavior. However, it lacks explanation of return values or what happens after update. Parameter descriptions would improve completeness, but the core is present.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'Atualiza campos de um chamado', implying any of the parameters can be updated, but provides no explanation of individual fields or constraints. Minimal compensation for low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool updates ticket fields and preserves previous state for reversal. Verb 'atualiza' (updates) + resource 'chamado' (ticket) is specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like criar (create), excluir (delete), consultar (consult).

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?

Description implies usage for updating ticket fields, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid. No mention of alternatives like glpi_adicionar_acompanhamento for adding follow-ups. Context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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