testmo_update_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical PATCH semantics ('Only provided fields change') and the irreversible closure behavior ('runs cannot be re-opened via the API; false is rejected'). This goes beyond the schema and gives agents essential edge-case knowledge.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, then adds critical behavioral caveats. There is no redundancy or vague filler.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational context needed to invoke the tool: PATCH semantics and closure irreversibility. It does not explain return values or error handling, but those are less critical for a simple update operation given the comprehensive schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds the partial-update semantic and clarifies the is_closed behavior beyond the schema note, but most parameter meaning remains in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a run (PATCH)', which gives a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('run'), and the HTTP method. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like testmo_create_run and testmo_update_cases by making the target resource explicit.

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 operational guidance: 'Only provided fields change' and 'Set is_closed=true to close a run'. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., testmo_update_cases) or mention exclusions, so usage context is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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