Change effective ticket status

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the change occurs in the local overlay and that the public MockAPI is untouched, providing insight into the mutation's side effects. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The two clauses deliver the essential action and scope efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema and meaningful annotations, the description adds the key behavioral distinction (local overlay vs. public API) that is not captured elsewhere. It is sufficient for a simple mutation tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it or what the idempotency key is for.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references 'status' indirectly via the action, providing no additional meaning for ticket_id or idempotency_key. The idempotency key's purpose and the expected format of ticket_id remain undocumented, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 action ('change status') and identifies the resource scope ('local overlay'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tickets_update_classification (which changes classifications) and tickets_add_reply (which adds messages). The added clarification that the public MockAPI remains untouched further differentiates it from tools that affect the public API.

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 implies usage for local status changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It clarifies that the public API is unaffected, which gives some contextual guidance, but it lacks direct comparisons to siblings or explicit 'use this when' phrasing.

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