ds_modify_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation, that mode is immutable, that anonymous access is denied, and that applied restrictions are returned. It still omits important update semantics, such as whether omitted restrictions are cleared or preserved and what authorization beyond anonymous denial is required.

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 four short sentences, front-loads the core action, and immediately states the key immutable constraint. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return behavior, the immutable mode constraint, and an auth restriction. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about partial-update behavior and permission requirements beyond anonymous denial.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general notion of restrictions and the explicit exclusion of mode, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: modify restrictions on an existing iRODS ticket. It also clarifies the immutable scope (mode cannot be changed), which helps separate it from creation or deletion tools. It does not name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It implies usage for existing tickets and gives one concrete precondition: anonymous users are not allowed. However, it does not explain when to choose this over siblings such as ds_create_ticket, ds_delete_ticket, or ds_use_ticket, leaving routing to inference.

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