testmo_update_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key non-obvious behaviors: PATCH semantics, same values written to every listed case, and the requirement that custom fields exist in every targeted case's template. This goes beyond simple 'updates cases' and helps the agent anticipate side effects. It lacks error/authorization details, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the core behavior (same values for all), and the third clarifies a subtle custom-field requirement. No filler, no repetition of schema details.

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 10-parameter update tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational aspects: batch semantics, custom-field handling, and singular/multiple id usage. It could mention that only provided fields are updated (PATCH), but that is already implied by the 'PATCH' mention. Given the rich schema, this description is adequately complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining that field values are applied uniformly to all ids, that 'name' is intended for single-id use, and how the 'custom' object must align with case templates. This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Update 1-100 repository cases (PATCH)' — a specific verb, resource, and method. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like testmo_list_cases (listing) and testmo_create_cases (creating), and the '1-100' scope adds precision.

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?

Provides clear context on how to use the tool: pass 'ids' plus fields to apply to all, with the note that 'name' is normally used with a single id. It also explains custom field placement and template constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage is well implied relative to sibling create/list tools.

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