api_post_v2_tickets_id

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already indicate. Annotations show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not mention any side effects, field updates, irreversibility, or required permissions. It merely repeats the verb 'update'.

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, compact phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and little contextual detail, the description is lacking. It does not describe the return value, side effects, required fields, or response format. The schema provides field names but not operational context.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), including example placeholders. The description itself does not add parameter meaning, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline of 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 operation: 'Обновить обращение' (Update ticket). The HTTP method (POST) and resource path (/api/v2/tickets/:id/) are explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GET tickets or POST tickets (creation).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'Update ticket' without explaining when this should be used over api_get_v2_tickets_id or api_post_v2_tickets.

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