zda_update_ticket_field

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the full burden. It reveals the need to pass fields directly without an envelope, but does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the field does not exist.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly list common fields. Every sentence adds useful information 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?

While the description is adequate for a simple update, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and how the update behaves with partial data. Given no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 adds value beyond schema by listing common fields that can be updated (e.g., type, title, description, required, active, custom_field_options). The schema covers 67% of parameters, and the description compensates for the data object's open-endedness.

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 an existing Zendesk ticket_field' with specific verb and resource. It lists common fields, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like zda_create_ticket_field or zda_get_ticket_field.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor prerequisites like requiring an existing ticket field. The context is implied by the name, but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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