alterar_status_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that some statuses require a mandatory justification. It does not, however, cover other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, reversibility, or possible side effects like notifications, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action, and uses two sentences to convey the core purpose and the conditional requirement. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool and fully described parameters, the description covers the main purpose and the one non-obvious constraint (justification for certain statuses). It lacks explicit guidance on error scenarios or post-conditions, but for a status mutation tool this is adequate.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of available statuses and justification requirement merely duplicates what is already in the property descriptions, adding no new semantic meaning.

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 'Altera' and the resource 'status de um ticket no Movidesk', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, consult, or list tickets. It also lists the allowed statuses, reinforcing the specific action.

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 clear context that this tool is for changing ticket statuses and enumerates the allowed statuses. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like adicionar_interacao or atribuir_agente, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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