tickets_update_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this is a write operation and adds valuable state semantics: resolving is reversible while closing is not. This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't cover permissions or side effects in more detail.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning is placed precisely where it adds decision value.

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 two-parameter write tool with a high-coverage schema and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what kinds of updates are expected, and warns about the one risky behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic grouping beyond the schema by telling the agent what kinds of updates are intended: comments, customer fields, and resolution. This helps interpret the free-form 'updates' object and signals that 'resolve' is a supported state change.

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 a case') and enumerates exact operations: adding comments, setting customer fields, and resolving. The '(WRITE)' marker and 'case' target distinguish it from read-only sibling tools and from tickets_create_case.

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?

The description implies when to use it: you have an existing case and need to modify it. It also gives useful intra-tool guidance ('Prefer resolve'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as using tickets_get_case or tickets_list_comments for read-only needs.

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