set_fields

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: all-or-nothing atomicity (names resolved first, whole call refused if any is unknown or ambiguous) and the permission rule that reassigning a person's ticket requires take_over.

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 sentences, each front-loaded and load-bearing: field scope, sibling routing, atomicity, then permission rules. Dense but no filler sentences; the field enumeration is the longest part but earns its place by scoping the tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. For a 17-parameter mutation tool the description covers scope, atomicity, and permission gates well; only minor gaps remain (e.g., whether omitted fields are left untouched).

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 82%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (baseline 3). The description supplements this by grouping the mutable fields and clarifying the take_over requirement and the assignee-refusal rule, adding semantics the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (ticket fields) and immediately enumerates the field categories it covers, while explicitly excluding content and workflow state. It names the sibling tools that own those exclusions (set_state, set_status), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: description changes go through set_state and workflow state through set_status. It also gives a clear precondition for the take_over flag and states that another agent's ticket, or one delegated to someone else, is refused.

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