Update multiple results with individual statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the caseFormat behavior with concrete examples, documents format-dependent support for comments/timeSpent, and discloses the reason behind the batch-size recommendation. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but the core constraints are 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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear bulleted list for caseFormat variants. Each sentence contributes useful information: the multi-result behavior, status mapping, format semantics, and batch-size guidance. There is no filler or redundant prose.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: required fields, status semantics, case identifier formats, and batch-size constraints. It could be more complete by explicitly disambiguating from bulk_update_test_results, but nothing critical is missing for constructing a valid request.

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. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by giving concrete caseFormat examples ('MNe7x', TR0029 → '29', TR0028) and clarifying which parameters apply only under the 'code' format. This helps an agent construct valid inputs more confidently.

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 specific operation: update several test run results in one call, each with its own status. The phrase 'each with its own status' distinguishes it from single-result updates and from bulk updates that might imply a single shared status, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when updating multiple test run results with individual statuses. It also gives practical batching guidance ('~20') due to URL length limits. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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