Update Zendesk Ticket

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

The description discloses that only passed fields are changed, tags replace the whole set, and the tool does not post replies. Annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are consistent, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise with three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the key information (what the tool does and its parameters) and efficiently adds usage guidelines and behavioral notes without redundancy.

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 covers essential aspects: partial update behavior, tag replacement, no replies, and how to find the ticket_id. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that setting tags replaces the entire set (reinforcing the schema), that only specified fields are changed, and that the updated ticket is returned. It also provides guidance on how to obtain the ticket_id, which aids in parameter selection.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing ticket' and lists the fields that can be updated (status, priority, type, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_public_comment, add_private_note, and manage_tags, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 clear guidance on when to use alternatives: 'use manage_tags to add or remove individual tags' and 'use add_public_comment or add_private_note for replies'. It also explains how to obtain the ticket_id via search_tickets or list_tickets, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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