update_run_in_plan_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing run data not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. It only states the basic action without operational context.

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 front-loads the core action ('Update a test run') and context ('inside a plan entry') with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications of updating a run within a plan entry versus standalone. The context signals indicate complexity that isn't matched by descriptive completeness.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between 'include_all' and 'case_ids' or what 'refs' format should be). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a test run inside a plan entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from generic 'update_run' by specifying the 'inside a plan entry' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'update_run' which might update runs outside plan entries.

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 like 'update_run' or 'update_plan_entry'. It mentions the context ('inside a plan entry') but doesn't explain why this specific tool is needed or what prerequisites exist for updating runs within plan entries versus standalone runs.

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