Update step statuses in a test run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation but does not explain effects such as whether existing step statuses are overwritten, whether permissions are required, what happens on partial failure, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a valuable pointer to the source of the step result keys without unnecessary detail.

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?

The schema covers all parameters, and the description provides the essential prerequisite for stepResultKeys. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could do more to explain the operation's effects, limits, or expected response, especially given the number of sibling update tools.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that stepResultKeys come from get_test_case_steps, which clarifies how to obtain the array values and ties the tool to its prerequisite.

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: updating the status of one or more steps in a test run case. It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_test_result or bulk_update_test_results beyond the word '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 description gives useful guidance by noting that step result keys come from get_test_case_steps, which tells the agent where to obtain required inputs. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as update_test_result, but the step-focused scope is reasonably clear.

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