Ticket wijzigen

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. Beyond that, the description adds two real behavioral facts: "Only the given fields are changed" (partial-update semantics, not full replacement) and "Closing a ticket may e-mail the contact" (an outbound side effect that annotations do not surface). Permissions, validation failures and response shape remain undisclosed, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the action and affected fields front-loaded before the lookup hint and the side-effect warning. Nothing in the text repeats structured fields or could be cut without losing information.

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 six-parameter mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers what changes, that change is partial, how to obtain ids, and the customer-facing side effect of closing. It does not say what is returned or which fields can be cleared, which are the remaining gaps for an agent calling it blind.

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 has to carry the semantics, and it does name five of the six parameters and explain where the id values come from via list_lookups. It does not state constraints the schema encodes (ticket_id minimum 1, subject length bounds) or what happens when an id is invalid or a field is omitted, so it adds good but not complete meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Change ... of a ticket") and enumerates the mutable fields: subject, status, priority, ticket type, assigned operator. That clearly separates it from get_ticket, search_tickets and create_ticket in the sibling list. It stops short of 5 because it never mentions set_ticket_categories, the sibling that also mutates a ticket, leaving the boundary between the two for the agent to infer.

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?

"Use list_lookups for the ids" gives concrete, actionable context for how to supply status_id, priority_id, ticket_type_id and operator_id, which no sibling-name alone would convey. There is no when-not guidance (e.g. that categories go through set_ticket_categories), so it reads as clear context without exclusions.

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