Update an existing OTRS ticket by adjusting its state, priority, queue, owner, title, or customer user to reflect current information.
Update an existing ticket in OTRS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | No | ||
| queue | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| customer_user | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details on its own. It communicates that the tool mutates an existing ticket, but it does not explain whether updates are partial, what fields are affected, what authorization is needed, or how invalid ticket IDs are handled.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification penalized in other dimensions.
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 tool with 7 parameters and no annotation or schema descriptions, one short sentence is insufficient. The description covers the core operation but omits field-level update semantics, optionality behavior, and error conditions; the presence of an output schema only accounts for return values, not input behavior.
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% and the description adds no parameter information. The 7 parameters, including optional nullable fields like state, priority, and owner, are left entirely to the agent to infer from their titles, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Update an existing ticket in OTRS'. It clearly indicates this tool modifies an already-created ticket, which distinguishes it from create_ticket and the read-only siblings, but it does not enumerate the updatable fields or explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Usage is only implied: use this tool when an existing OTRS ticket needs to be modified. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over create_ticket or get_ticket, and no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.