zendesk_update_ticket

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention critical details like whether updates are partial or replace values, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., notifications).

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. All content is relevant and to the point.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no information about return values, partial update behavior, or restrictions. It is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It simply restates 'update properties' without elaborating on how parameters interact (e.g., tags replace existing tags). Baseline 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 'Update a Zendesk ticket's properties' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('ticket properties'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'zendesk_create_ticket' and 'zendesk_get_ticket'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., adding notes via 'zendesk_add_public_note'). Usage is implied by the name and context, but the description lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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