update_ticket

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the state machine for status transitions and the terminal nature of 'closed', which an agent cannot derive from the enum alone.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint detail following; every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage, the undisclosed 'unassign' parameter and the ambiguous relationship between assignee and unassign leave a real functional gap.

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 ticket_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning and legal transitions of the status parameter, which the enum does not, but it never mentions the 'unassign' boolean or the assignee semantics, leaving two parameters effectively undocumented.

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 (change) and names the exact mutable fields (status, priority, assignee), which cleanly separates it from read-only siblings like get_ticket and search_tickets. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 transition rules implicitly say when a status change is legal, which is useful usage context, but there is no guidance on when to choose update_ticket over add_comment or create_ticket, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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