kiwi_update_test_execution

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

With no annotations at all, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It accurately signals mutation and shows concrete values with a date format and a status reference, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or replacing, what happens on invalid keys, or what the API returns.

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?

One information-dense sentence with a front-loaded action, followed by two short JSON examples and a cross-reference. No filler or repetition.

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?

The example values and date format make basic calls feasible, but the values object is unconstrained in the schema and described only with 'e.g.', leaving the full set of updatable fields unknown. No return behavior is mentioned and there is no output schema, so an agent may not know what to expect after the call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the values object with realistic examples (status_id, tested_by_id, stop_date) and a specific date format, plus a reference for valid statuses. execution_id is left to its self-explanatory name and integer type, which is acceptable.

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 the specific action 'Update one execution', clearly identifying the resource and singular scope. It distinguishes itself from the bulk sibling kiwi_update_executions_bulk by explicitly saying 'one'. The example values further clarify the operation.

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 singular scope implies this is for single-execution updates rather than bulk updates, and the pointer to kiwi_get_execution_statuses indicates when to consult a sibling for valid status IDs. It does not explicitly name the bulk alternative or list exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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