infoset_update_ticket

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but does not state whether updates are partial or full replacement, what authentication is required, what side effects occur, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It is concise, but it is also so minimal that it provides only the bare minimum. Given the tool's complexity, slightly more detail could be justified, so it's not a 5.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to provide complete context. It doesn't explain partial update semantics, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't mention that only provided fields are updated or that ticketId is required. The schema already handles parameter semantics, so no additional credit or penalty.

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 'existing Infoset ticket', which distinguishes it from create/get/list siblings. However, it lacks scope details like which fields can be updated, so it's not a 5.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used for modifying existing tickets, nor does it reference sibling tools like create_ticket or get_ticket. The usage context is completely implied.

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