autotask_update_ticket

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must bear the burden. The phrase 'Only fields provided will be changed' reveals partial update behavior, which is good. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or whether updates are irreversible. No annotation contradiction.

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 a single sentence, highly concise, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with essential purpose and behavior.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it identifies the operation, resource, and partial update behavior. However, it could mention return value (e.g., updated ticket object) or error conditions, but since no output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values per rules. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an update tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra param info beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not compensate with additional context for any parameters.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing ticket in Autotask'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only 'update_ticket' among many create/search tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from e.g., update_ticket_checklist_item or other update tools.

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 does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It notes that only provided fields are changed, which implies partial updates, but lacks alternatives or context. The schema hints at using other tools for status/priority IDs, but description itself doesn't.

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