invariance_case_update

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and openWorldHint true. The description adds a shallow-merge detail for custom_attrs and mentions status transitions, but doesn't disclose side effects like required presence of outcome for status close or behavior of other fields. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary actions and ends with an alternative routing, making it easy for an agent to digest quickly.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 50% schema coverage, openWorldHint true, and no output schema. The description does not mention required conditions (e.g., outcome needed for status='closed'), return format, or other side effects. Given the complexity and the open-world nature, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, half of the parameters (id, owner, status, closed_at) lack schema descriptions. The description only names owner, custom_attrs, and status, and the custom_attrs shallow-merge info is already present in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters or add extra semantics for them.

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 verb 'update' with the resource 'case' and enumerates the main types of updates: owner, custom_attrs, and status. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling invariance_case_close, making the 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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use invariance_case_close for the common 'set outcome + close' path, providing a clear alternative for a specific scenario. The listing of update types also gives implicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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