Update a test run result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that status is updated and a comment is optional, but it doesn't say whether an existing comment is replaced or appended, whether status transitions are validated, or what side effects or response occur after the update.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, the scope, and the optional comment.

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?

For a simple update operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but it doesn't mention return behavior, permissions, or how this tool relates to the update_test_result_steps and bulk_update_test_results siblings. Some of that burden falls on context, but additional description would make selection safer.

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 five parameters, including that resultKey comes from list_test_run_results. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'status' and 'optional comment,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Update the status') and resource ('a single test run result'), and the 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from bulk_update_test_results and update_test_results_multi. It also implies the scope is status, not steps, helping separate it from update_test_result_steps.

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 word 'single' implies this tool is for one result rather than bulk operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to sibling alternatives such as bulk_update_test_results or update_test_result_steps. An agent must infer the boundary from the schema and sibling names.

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