tomticket_update_organization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful facts: 'altera producao' warns that this modifies production data, and 'Propriedade vazia e ignorada' explains partial-update behavior. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as response format, permissions, or reversibility.

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 and front-loaded with the most important caution, followed by the action and the key property-handling rule. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain expected return values, prerequisites, side effects, or the meaning of several ambiguous parameters, so it is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 description coverage is only 8%, so the description should compensate for the 11 undocumented parameters. It adds a general rule about empty properties being ignored, which is useful, but it does not clarify fields like create_tickets, team_see_all_tickets, or manager_see_all_tickets, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Atualiza uma organizacao' (updates an organization). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like tomticket_create_organization and tomticket_list_organizations based on the update action.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states the action and a property-handling rule, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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