wetrack_update_ticket_priority

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the update action and adds one useful behavioral detail ('code is auto-derived from name'), but it does not disclose authorization requirements, whether omitted optional fields are preserved or reset, reversibility, or downstream effects such as impacts on tickets using the priority.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a clean Args list. Every line contributes meaning—either clarifying the parameter's purpose or its allowed values—without any filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 documents all parameters and an output schema is present, so return-value handling is not a gap. However, for an update operation with no annotations, it lacks guidance on usage context and partial-update semantics, which are important for an agent to correctly invoke it without unintended side effects.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all 7 parameters: priority_id, name, priority_type with allowed values, resource with allowed values, description, color, and icon. This is essential and high-value information that the schema alone does not provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update a ticket priority by ID.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wetrack_create_ticket_priority, wetrack_get_ticket_priority, and wetrack_delete_ticket_priority.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing priority, nor does it point to get_ticket_priority for reading current values or create_ticket_priority for new priorities. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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