zendesk_update_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'updates' without detailing behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties (e.g., if tags replace existing ones, as hinted in schema but not description).

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, side effects), usage guidelines, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'properties' updates, aligning with the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Zendesk ticket's properties'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'zendesk_create_ticket' or 'zendesk_get_ticket' beyond the basic action, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a ticket ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'zendesk_add_private_note' for adding notes versus updating properties.

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