update_ticket_stage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a mutation ('Move'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid stage), or what happens to ticket history. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the Args formatting adds some verbosity. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted content.

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 the tool's mutation nature, 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidelines. The output schema may handle return values, but the description should still address mutation risks.

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?

The description explicitly documents both parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that 'ticket_id' identifies the ticket to update and 'stage_id' is the target stage, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., numeric IDs) or constraints.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('helpdesk ticket'), and specifies the action ('to a different stage'). It distinguishes itself from generic update operations by focusing on stage transitions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_task_stage' tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist, stage must be valid), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to certain stages), or compare it to similar tools like 'update_task_stage' or 'update_record'.

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