Categorieën van ticket wijzigen

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that — unmentioned categories are preserved, making this a merge-style partial update — but it is silent on edge cases such as an id appearing in both add and remove, unknown category ids, or what a removal means for the ticket's other data.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the merge behavior and the id source. Nothing is redundant and each sentence supplies information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate whether the resulting category set is returned or what a partial failure looks like; it does not. With annotations covering the safety profile and the core semantics stated, it is adequate for a three-parameter mutation, but not complete enough to call without any residual 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?

Schema coverage is 67% with described add and remove arrays; the ticket_id parameter carries no description in either the schema or the prose. The description does add value by pointing at list_lookups as the id source and by explaining the additive/removal semantics, which the schema's short 'ids to add/remove' notes do not fully capture.

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 names a specific verb pair (add/remove) and resource (categories on a ticket), and the line about unmentioned categories remaining clarifies that this is a partial setter rather than a full ticket overwrite. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling update_ticket, so the boundary between the two is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: fetch ids via list_lookups (ticket_categories), which routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling. It does not state whether add and remove may be combined in one call, nor when to prefer this over update_ticket, leaving those decisions to inference.

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