Update Zendesk Ticket

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

Annotations already convey destructive=true and idempotent=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, authorization needs, or behavior when omitting fields). It meets the baseline but does not exceed what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, listing parameters. Efficient but lacks structure; no separation of key info from details.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not cover return values, error scenarios, or behavior when fields are omitted. For a complex mutation tool, more context is needed.

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 only 11% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing the updatable fields (status, priority, type, etc.). However, it does not explain enum values, required fields, or format of custom fields, leaving 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'existing ticket', and lists specific fields that can be modified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_tags or add_private_note, which also modify ticket attributes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_private_comment or create_ticket. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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