update_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains partial-update semantics, the allowed status values, that blocked_by replaces the whole dependency list, validation failures for nonexistent tickets or cycles, the direction convention ('A blocks B' means setting blocked_by on B), and that body_sections replaces whole sections by heading. This is unusually thorough.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important behavior ('anything left out is left alone'). Every sentence earns its place, covering replacement semantics, validation, direction, and sibling alternatives without redundancy.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. The only real gap is the unexplained external_ref parameter; everything else needed to call the tool correctly is present. Return values need not be covered since an output schema exists.

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 clarify parameters. It does well for status (allowed values, finished-state routing), blocked_by (replacement, validation, direction), and body_sections (replacement by heading). However, external_ref is never mentioned, leaving its semantics to inference. ticket_id is self-evident from its name.

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 clear verb ('Amend') and resource ('a ticket') and immediately clarifies the update model: partial amendments where unspecified fields are untouched. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming complete_task, verify_task, and complete_spike as the right tools for finished states.

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 explicitly says to prefer complete_task, verify_task, or complete_spike when handling finished states, with the reason that they also record notes. This gives an agent a concrete decision rule for when to avoid update_ticket and pick a sibling.

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