update_test_run

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

Discloses key behavioral trait: mutation (update), field preservation for unspecified fields, and environment constraint (Cloud only). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Missing details like error handling, permissions, or response format, but sufficient for a simple update 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states action and scope, second adds key behavioral and environmental context. Front-loaded with most important 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?

Adequate for a simple update tool with no output schema. Covers main parameters, preservation behavior, and environment. Could mention expected response or error cases for full completeness, but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description enumerates some parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what schema already provides. The 'unspecified fields preserved' note is behavioral, not parameter-specific.

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?

Clear verb 'Update' with specific resource 'existing test cycle' and explicit list of updatable fields (owner, name, description, dates, status). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_test_run, delete_test_run, and get_test_run by implying modification of existing entities. Includes environment constraint 'Cloud only'.

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?

Implicitly guides to use for modifying an existing test cycle, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The note 'Unspecified fields are preserved' provides helpful usage behavior. Could be improved by contrasting with create_test_run for new cycles.

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