update_ticket

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

Since no annotations are present, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists valid state and status values but does not describe side effects, required permissions, validation rules, or what happens to other fields.

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 brief with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. No filler or redundant information.

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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers only a small fraction of the tool's scope. Missing details on required fields (project_id, ticket_id), output behavior, and field interactions make it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 13 parameters. It only documents allowed values for state and status, leaving the other 11 parameters (title, due_on, priority, etc.) unexplained.

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 'Update a ticket' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates allowed values for state and status, distinguishing this update operation from create/get ticket tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ticket, update_card, or update_project. The description only defines what the tool does without specifying use cases or exclusions.

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