update_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, what fields can be updated, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential information (update + ticket + Freshdesk context) in a single clear sentence.

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 2 parameters (one being a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context about what the tool actually does, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'ticket_id' and 'ticket_fields' represent or how they should be used. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on what data to provide.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a ticket in Freshdesk'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_ticket_conversation or update_ticket_summary, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for updating ticket-related entities (update_ticket_conversation, update_ticket_summary, etc.), but no indication of when this specific ticket update tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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