superops_tickets_update

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It communicates a mutating operation and mentions 'resolution' as an input, but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether resolution is required when status is set to Resolved/Closed, permission requirements, or any side effects.

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?

A single hyphenated sentence that front-loads the action and then lists categories of fields, with no filler. It is as short as possible while conveying the tool's scope.

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?

The schema and the absence of an output schema mean the description is the only source for behavior and return expectations, and it remains skeletal. Missing usage exclusions, partial-update semantics, and outcome/response details make it incomplete for an agent choosing between six ticket tools.

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 100%, so the schema documents every parameter and the description need not repeat details. The description groups fields semantically ('assignment' for assigneeId/techGroupName) but adds no format/default/enum meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing ticket') and enumerates the editable aspects (status, priority, assignment, resolution), which distinguishes it from create/get/list siblings by scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 given on when to choose this over tickets_create, tickets_add_note, or other ticket mutations. The phrase 'existing ticket' implies it is not for creation, but there are no exclusionary or conditional statements.

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