Update a ticket

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds explicit warning: 'This modifies the ticket — confirm changes with the user first', which aligns with annotations and discloses side effects appropriately.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding value: core fields, custom field lookup, modification warning, return value. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what can be updated, how to handle custom fields, and what is returned (updated ticket). Lacks error/permission details but is sufficient for typical 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 coverage is 80%; description enumerates key parameters and adds practical guidance for customFields ('look up exact value with zendesk_ticket_fields'), supplementing the schema's own descriptions.

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', listing specific fields (status, priority, type, assignee, group, tags, custom fields) and optional comment. It distinguishes from siblings like zendesk_add_comment by covering general field updates.

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?

Provides context: confirm changes with user first, look up custom field values via zendesk_ticket_fields. Does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for adding comments only, use sibling), but the sibling list and optional comment clarify scope.

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