wetrack_update_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important mutation semantics: only provided fields change, assignees and tags replace existing values, parent_id reassigns to an EPIC, and sprint_id moves the ticket to a sprint. It stops short of explaining null-clearing behavior, permissions, or error behavior, which prevents a 5.

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 efficient: one clear lead sentence followed by compact, one-line parameter explanations. Every line adds necessary information, especially given that the schema itself contains no parameter descriptions.

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?

The description covers all parameters, establishes partial-update behavior, and includes the required ticket_id for targeting. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the description does not clarify whether passing null clears a field or is ignored, nor does it mention failure behavior for invalid IDs.

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%, yet the Args block adds meaningful semantics for all 13 parameters: UUIDs, rich HTML, ID types, positive-integer constraint, ISO datetime, replace semantics, and EPIC/sprint context. This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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 opens with 'Update a ticket's fields', a clear verb-resource pair that immediately identifies what the tool does. It is distinct from the many sibling update_* tools because it targets the ticket object itself, not ticket statuses, priorities, categories, or other support entities.

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 statement 'Only fields you provide are changed' gives clear partial-update context and signals that this tool is for modifying an existing ticket rather than creating one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the resource and action are unambiguous enough for correct selection among siblings.

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