Update service ticket status

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

Adds behavior well beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effect that 'completed' moves the service date to today, clarifies that customer-facing emails are NOT sent, and states the return value ('the ticket as saved'). These are exactly the non-obvious consequences an agent needs before mutating a ticket, and nothing contradicts the idempotent/non-destructive hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and includes only decision-relevant details (email caveat, date mutation, return value). Minor redundancy: the status values are enumerated twice, once informally in the first sentence and again in full in the second.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the key side effect, what is deliberately not triggered, and what is returned. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (only service_ticket_id is described), so the description compensates by restating the full status enum and, importantly, explaining the semantic consequence of the 'completed' value. It does not explain 'requires_followup' or 'closed' beyond the label, leaving some interpretation to the enum names.

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 and resource ('Sets the status of a Contractor Foreman service ticket') and explicitly frames it as the programmatic equivalent of the status field on the ticket page. The full set of target statuses is named, so an agent can distinguish this from get_service_ticket or create_service_ticket without opening the 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?

Explains the operational context (mirrors the app's status field) and explicitly warns that the en-route and completion emails are separate actions not triggered here, which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't sufficient. It does not name a sibling alternative or state prerequisites such as permissions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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