Update a ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the partial update nature and lists updatable fields. It lacks information on side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or return value behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence of 12 words. It front-loads the key behavior (update ticket with specific fields) and includes the critical partial update note. No extraneous text.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and is a mutation tool, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or how labels are handled (replace vs append). The partial update note helps but leaves many contextual gaps.

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 low (43%, 3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds some value by mapping fields like 'status' to status_cd, but does not explain message_box_id or ticket_id. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Update', the resource 'ticket', and lists specific fields (status, assignee, labels, color, pending reason). It also notes the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment or get_ticket.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), conditions for update, or scenarios where other tools might be preferred. The guidance is implicit at best.

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