update_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context: it reveals that the 'actions' field supports internal notes (type=1) and public replies (type=2). However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as return value, side effects, or required permissions.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose, HTTP method, usage tip, and special field behavior. No redundant words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a PATCH operation but lacks details on response format and full structure of actions field (e.g., required subfields). Adequate for basic usage.

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?

The schema only defines 'id' with a minimal description, but the tool description adds substantial meaning to the implicit 'actions' parameter (allowed types). Since additionalProperties allows many parameters, the description compensates for schema gaps.

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 tool updates an existing ticket using PATCH, specifying the verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket (create vs update) and list_tickets (list vs update) via the verb, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 advises to send only changed fields, which is correct PATCH behavior. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives (e.g., use create_ticket for new tickets, list_tickets for reading).

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