Update specific fields of an existing test run by supplying its ID and a partial values object, e.g. set the stop date to record completion.
Update a test run with a partial field dict (e.g. {"stop_date": "2026-09-08 17:00:00"}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| values | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the update is partial, which is useful, and gives a date format example, but it does not mention permissions, validation, side effects, or whether changes are reversible. This is too thin for a mutating 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?
One focused sentence with a concrete example and no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded.
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 description is minimal for a tool whose main parameter is an unrestricted object. It lacks a list of updatable fields, any output contract, and behavioral context such as validation or error conditions. An agent would likely need to guess or consult another source before calling this correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by explaining that 'values' is a partial field dict and provides one example key, but it does not enumerate supported fields, clarify run_id semantics, or explain what fields are valid in the arbitrary values object.
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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('a test run'), and the mechanism ('partial field dict'). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like kiwi_update_test_case and kiwi_update_test_execution by resource.
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 clearly implies this tool is for modifying an existing test run, not for creating, getting, or deleting one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.