Bulk update test run results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints: run mode is 'status only', moduleKeys and caseCodes are conditionally required, and assignee is only for modules/cases. It does not disclose failure semantics, return format, or irreversibility, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured. The core action is front-loaded, the three modes are presented as scannable bullets, and the alternative tool is mentioned in a single closing line. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Required parameters are in the schema, and the description adds conditional requirements, mode restrictions, and an example case code (TR001). The only notable gaps are the lack of return-value information and potential partial-failure behavior, which would be helpful for a bulk operation with no output schema.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant meaning beyond it. It explains the `by` enum through concrete modes, states conditional requirements (moduleKeys required for modules, caseCodes for cases), and clarifies that assignee applies only to modules/cases. This is crucial information not obvious from 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Set one status (and optionally assignee/comment) across many results of a test run.' It further clarifies scope with three well-defined modes (run, modules, cases). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_test_results_multi, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'For per-case different statuses use update_test_results_multi instead.' It also explains when each `by` mode applies and which parameters are required for modules and cases. It does not mention the single-result alternative update_test_result, but the bulk nature is evident from the name and description.

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