Update a ticket product's name, description, or active status using its product ID.
Update a ticket product.
Args: product_id: The product ID. name: New name (required). description: New description. is_active: Active state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and lists fields, but does not explain whether this is a partial update, what happens when is_active is null, whether the update is reversible, or what response to expect.
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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clear parameter list. Every line adds useful information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 operation is simple, has four scalar parameters, and an output schema is present, so the description need not explain return values. However, because annotations are absent and the description lacks usage context, behavioral nuance, and a clear distinction from the toggle operation, it is only moderately complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.
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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It provides brief semantic labels ('New name', 'New description', 'Active state'), which add minimal meaning beyond field names but do not fully clarify semantics such as null handling for is_active or the meaning of description.
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 specific verb and resource ('Update a ticket product'), which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools like create_ticket_product, get_ticket_product, and toggle_ticket_product, since 'update' is a distinct action.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wetrack_toggle_ticket_product or wetrack_create_ticket_product. The description only lists arguments, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.