zentao_update_testcase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or whether changes are immediately persisted. It simply states the action without any behavioral context. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 (5 characters in Chinese) but is under-specified. It lacks details that would help an agent understand the tool's scope and behavior. Conciseness is valued, but not at the expense of essential information. This is closer to tautology than efficient communication.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, 1 required) and lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about the update operation, what fields are commonly updated, and any return value. The description fails to do so, relying solely on the schema for parameter details. The tool is a mutation without any behavioral or output context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema_description_coverage is high, and the description does not enhance the parameter understanding.

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 '修改禅道用例' clearly indicates the action (修改 = modify/update) and resource (禅道用例 = ZenTao test case). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like zentao_create_testcase, zentao_get_testcase, and zentao_delete_testcase. However, it does not elaborate on what specific aspects of a test case can be modified, which would elevate it to a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zentao_create_testcase. The purpose is implied from the name and description, but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. For a simple update tool, this is minimally adequate but not helpful for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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