update_ticket_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions the 50-field limit and checkbox handling, but does not disclose whether the operation is atomic, if it overwrites or merges entities, permissions required, or error handling behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 key aspects like field limits, checkbox handling, and value formatting. However, it lacks information about error scenarios, what happens on partial failures, and the return value (no output schema). Given the tool's complexity, these gaps are minor.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the 50-field limit, how to find option IDs using list_entity_field_options, and the exact formatting for different entity types (e.g., currency, phone, date).

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 tool updates custom fields (entities) of a ticket in TiFlux, specifies a 50-field limit, and explains how to handle checkbox fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update_ticket' tool which likely handles standard fields.

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 provides some contextual usage (e.g., how to handle checkboxes and use list_entity_field_options), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ticket, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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