update_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing test case' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full updates). For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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?

For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error handling, what constitutes a successful update, or the response format. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, formatting requirements, or business rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra value.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing test case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_case' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_milestone' or 'update_plan' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a valid case_id), when to choose this over 'add_case', or how it relates to other update operations in the system. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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