tdx-ticket-update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'replaces all fields,' indicating destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key behavioral trait (full replacement). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), return values, or error cases. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 schema already documents all parameters (appId, id, data). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints for 'data' (e.g., PascalCase requirement). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Full update') and resource ('TDX ticket'), specifying it replaces all fields. It distinguishes from 'tdx-ticket-patch' by indicating a full replacement rather than partial update. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling 'tdx-ticket-update' doesn't exist, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description implies usage by specifying 'replaces all fields,' which suggests it should be used when a complete ticket update is needed, as opposed to 'tdx-ticket-patch' for partial updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'tdx-ticket-create' or 'tdx-ticket-get,' leaving some ambiguity.

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