update_test_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only provided fields are updated (partial update), supports null to clear fields, and lists possible values for enums. However, it doesn't mention authorization, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. Given the tool's complexity (14 params, nested objects), the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured: a clear introductory sentence, a required field note, a block listing optional fields with explanations, and an example. Each sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the number of parameters. No redundancy.

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 covers most important aspects: required and optional fields, null behavior, example usage. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return value (output) upon update. With no output schema, the description should ideally state what is returned. Despite this, the description is fairly complete for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing fields, explaining null behavior, and providing a concrete example. It also clarifies convenience fields like assignee and assignment. This goes beyond the raw 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 'Update an existing test plan in TestCollab.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_plan, get_test_plan, list_test_plans, and delete_test_plan. The verb 'update' and resource 'test plan' are specific and unambiguous.

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 specifies that 'id' is required and that 'all other fields are optional and only provided fields are updated.' This implies partial update behavior and hints at when to use this tool (modify existing plan). While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives for creating or reading, the sibling tool names provide enough context.

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