Update an existing ticket class for an Eventbrite event by changing its name, description, price, or total quantity.
Update an existing ticket class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| currency | No | USD | |
| event_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| cost_in_cents | No | ||
| quantity_total | No | ||
| ticket_class_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation mutates an existing ticket class but gives no information about partial-update semantics, required identifiers, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is a minimal one-line statement with no added behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though arguably too sparse given the tool's 7 parameters and lack of annotations.
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?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is not sufficient. It identifies the operation but omits update semantics, which fields are editable, how defaults behave, and what conditions must hold. The output schema may cover return values but not the operational context.
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%, and the description names no parameters or field-level semantics. With 7 parameters, the agent gets no help from the description in understanding the meaning of name, currency, cost_in_cents, quantity_total, or description beyond their raw schema titles.
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 states a clear action ('Update') on a specific resource ('existing ticket class'), which distinguishes it from create_ticket_class, get_ticket_class, and list_ticket_classes. It does not enumerate which fields are updatable, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 given on when to use this tool versus create_ticket_class, get_ticket_class, or list_ticket_classes. The word 'existing' implies the ticket class must already exist, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.