Update TestRail Run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions partial updates are supported (useful context), it doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields during partial updates. For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about partial updates. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar update tools. The mention of partial updates is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps.

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 description mentions 'partial updates are supported' which provides context about how parameters work together, but doesn't add specific meaning to individual parameters beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting of documenting all parameters.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('an existing test run'), and specifies that partial updates are supported. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_case' or 'update_test' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_case' or 'update_test'. It mentions partial updates are supported, but doesn't explain when this might be preferred over creating a new run or using other update tools.

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