Change a ticket's fields

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

The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false). It discloses that the customer is not emailed, that status changes are visible on the portal, that Freshdesk automations may react, and that status/priority values are validated server-side with a helpful listing of valid values. These details give the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 three sentences, with the action and scope in the first sentence, followed by two sentences each adding unique behavioral information. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key behavioral outcomes (customer notification, portal visibility, automation triggers, validation). The main gap is that it does not explicitly clarify whether unspecified fields remain unchanged (partial update vs full replacement), and it omits any mention of the return value. These are non-fatal but leave minor ambiguity.

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 already documents several parameters (tags replacement semantics, status name/code, priority values, custom_fields keying). The description adds value by mapping human-friendly names (assignee, group) to the actual parameters (responder_id, group_id) and by explaining the validation behavior for status and priority, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not describe every parameter in detail, so a 4 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 opens with a clear verb 'Move a ticket' and explicitly lists the exact fields it modifies (status, priority, assignee, group, type, tags, custom fields). This immediately distinguishes it from communication-oriented siblings like freshdesk_reply_to_customer by indicating it changes ticket properties rather than sending messages. The additional note that 'the customer is not emailed by this' further clarifies its scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a ticket's fields need to be updated. It provides important contextual guidance by noting that the customer is not emailed but that status changes are portal-visible and automations may react. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, falling slightly short of a full 5.

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