autotask_update_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It conveys the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), but lacks details on return values, error handling, authorization, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. Every word earns its place, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., highlighting the partial update behavior first). Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits return value details, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), and relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 high (82%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the 'only provided fields' note applies globally. The schema itself already provides useful descriptions for most parameters.

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 'ticket record', and adds the critical nuance 'Only provided fields are changed' to indicate partial update behavior. The tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like autotask_create_ticket or autotask_search_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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., autotask_create_ticket for new tickets, autotask_get_ticket_details for reading). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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