haops_update_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update... fields' without mentioning side effects (e.g., notifications, permission requirements, or that unspecified fields remain unchanged). The 'verbose' parameter behavior is only defined in the schema, not in the description.

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, efficient sentence. It is concise but lacks front-loading of critical information. However, it is not overly verbose and each phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, many optional) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return value, default behavior, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools exist for related actions, so more guidance would be beneficial.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the fields. It does not explain relationships or constraints (e.g., status transition rules).

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 it updates helpdesk ticket fields and lists the specific fields (status, priority, category, assignee, tags). It distinguishes from sibling tools like haops_create_ticket and haops_close_ticket by specifying it's for triage and management of existing tickets.

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?

It implies use when modifying ticket fields, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., haops_close_ticket, haops_reply_ticket). The phrase 'Used for triage and management' provides some context but no exclusion criteria.

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