Update ticket

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it updates specific properties, implying partial updates, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, side effects, or permission requirements. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the updatable properties. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 straightforward nature of the tool, the description covers the essential information: what it changes and which properties. The schema and annotations provide additional context (e.g., required ticket_id, non-destructive behavior). It does not mention return values or error behavior, but this is not critical for a simple update tool and is likely handled by the schema or standard expectations.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantic clarity by mapping 'status' to status_code (with example 'closed'), 'department' to department_id, and 'linked service' to contract_product_id. This helps the agent understand the purpose of these parameters beyond the schema's short 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' and the resource 'ticket', and specifies the exact properties that can be updated (status, subject, department, priority, linked service). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_ticket and assign_ticket, which handle different aspects of ticket management.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to change ticket properties such as status, subject, etc. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (reply_ticket, assign_ticket) makes the intended use clear. No explicit 'use X instead' guidance is given, but the context is sufficient.

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