update_case

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

No annotations provided. The description lacks detail on error conditions, authentication needs, or side effects beyond the patch behavior. The forwarding of `fields` as-is is mentioned but overall transparency is minimal 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?

Two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Highly efficient.

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 two parameters, but lacks information on return values or error states. Given no output schema, the description could be more 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that `fields` is forwarded as-is, listing common keys, and providing an example for `custom_steps_separated`. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema.

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 'Patch' (update) and resource 'existing test case', and shows how `fields` is forwarded to TestRail as-is, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_test_case or get_test_case.

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 usage guidance by listing common keys and how to structure steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or specify exclusions.

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