zendesk_update_ticket

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states returns 'JSON of the refreshed ticket' and that only provided fields change. However, it does not clarify whether tags/custom_fields are replaced or merged, permissions needed, or behavior on invalid input.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by a structured list of parameter constraints.

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?

Given 12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers critical fields but omits details on tags and custom_fields. Output schema exists, so return value is explained. Still, gaps remain in parameter semantics and usage guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage, forcing description to compensate. Description adds allowed values for status, priority, type, and type hints for assignee_id, requester_id, due_at, group_id, custom_status_id. But subject, tags, custom_fields lack explanation beyond their names.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: 'Update one or more fields on a Zendesk ticket.' This clearly distinguishes it from creation, status-specialized, and other update-related sibling tools like zendesk_set_ticket_status. The verb 'update' and resource 'Zendesk ticket' are specific.

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?

Advises 'Pass only the fields you want to change,' implying partial updates. Provides allowed values for status, priority, type, and data format for due_at. However, does not explicitly compare to sibling zendesk_set_ticket_status or state when not to use this tool.

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