update_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does label the operation as 'WRITE' and states the HTTP method, but it does not disclose whether fields are merged or fully replaced, nor what happens when a field is set to null. It does explicitly note the non-comment behavior, which is useful, but leaves other side effects unstated.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type ('WRITE') and a clear list of fields. It wastes no words and provides the key differentiator in the second sentence.

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 straightforward update tool with an output schema and a sibling list, the description is largely sufficient. It gives the endpoint, the fields, and the key exclusion (comments). The main gap is the lack of explanation about merge-vs-replace semantics and null handling, which could affect usage, but the schema's tag description partially covers one aspect.

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 only 20% (only the 'tags' parameter has a description in the schema), so the description is expected to compensate. It mentions the field names 'status, priority, assignee, tags' but does not explain their semantics, types, or accepted values. There is also a mismatch: the description says 'assignee' while the schema parameter is 'assignee_id', and it does not clarify that this is a user ID, nor does it describe the enum values for status/priority.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('ticket fields: status, priority, assignee, tags'), and clearly distinguishes what it does from the sibling tool add_ticket_comment by explicitly stating 'Does not add comments' and directing to that alternative. It also states the HTTP method and endpoint, making the function unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to update ticket fields) and explicitly states when not to use it (for adding comments), providing the exact sibling tool to use instead (add_ticket_comment). This gives both an inclusion and exclusion criterion, which is strong guidance.

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