update_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only labels the operation as a 'mutation', which implies state changes, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, irreversibility, or what happens to omitted fields. This is insufficient 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the operation type, followed by a compact example. The example JSON is lengthy but necessary to convey the input structure. No unnecessary 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover what the mutation returns, any constraints (e.g., required fields within input), and how it interacts with related case operations. It only provides a raw example, leaving significant gaps for choosing and invoking the tool 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?

The schema's description for 'input' is merely 'GraphQL: UpdateCaseInput!', which is unhelpful. The example variables add significant meaning by showing the expected structure, including fields like caseId, severity, state, and expirationDate. This helps an agent construct a valid input 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 is essentially 'Cases · mutation updateCase' which restates the tool name and category, but the included example variables show the updatable fields (severity, state, title, etc.), implying it updates case attributes. It does not explicitly say 'Updates a case' or distinguish from related tools like close_case or update_case_due_date.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of using update_case_due_date for due-date-specific changes or close_case for closing. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues.

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