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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes well beyond them, disclosing that the steps array is the field automation reads, that it is the only way to add a mobile selector, and that a plain string is stored as free-text that no generator reads as steps — non-obvious behavioral consequences that no structured field captures.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then spends the following sentences on the high-value steps nuance. No filler; the density is justified by the tricky dual-type parameter.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool with an 8-param schema, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile. The description focuses on the one parameter with non-obvious behavior, which is the right allocation given the schema handles the rest.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the highest-risk parameter (steps) by explaining the semantic difference between the array and string forms and their downstream effect on automation. Other parameters are covered by the schema alone.

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?

States a clear verb (update) and resource (test case) and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, steps, expected result, category, priority). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like enhance_test_case or create_test_case, so it stops short of 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?

Provides useful when-to-use guidance specifically for the steps field — array for structured/automation steps vs. plain string for free-text instructions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., enhance_test_case) or any stated prerequisites.

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