update_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged or cleared, whether the operation is partial or full-replace, or what permissions are required. The only hint is '(or None)' on assignee_id, which is ambiguous between unassign and no-op.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact Args list. The list partially restates schema field names, but the examples make it earn its place, so there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, the description is thin on the update semantics and side effects an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does the compensating work: it names each field, gives a key format example ('CPD-123'), and shows an extra_fields example ({"board": 1, "sprint": 2}). It falls short of explaining null/unset semantics for assignee_id and whether summary/description overwrite or append.

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 and resource ('Update fields of an existing ticket'), so an agent knows this mutates an existing work item rather than creating one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like transition_ticket, which can also change ticket state, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (create_ticket, transition_ticket, add_comment, delete_ticket). An agent must infer from the name alone whether status changes belong here or in transition_ticket.

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