alm_update_run_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('update') and specifies allowed status values. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, or behavior on invalid input. The return format {updated: true} adds transparency, but more detail on edge cases would be beneficial.

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 concise and well-structured, using clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (the action and parameters) is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, allowed parameter values, and the return format. However, it lacks information about possible error conditions, prerequisite states (e.g., existence of test run), or edge cases, which slightly reduces 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?

The input schema only provides type information (string) for the two parameters, with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds crucial semantics: test_run_id is identified as the ALM ID, and status is given explicit allowed values ('Passed', 'Failed', 'Not Completed', 'Blocked'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: updating the overall pass/fail status of a test run. It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('status of a test run'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that update different entities (e.g., alm_update_defect, alm_update_test_case) or perform other actions on test runs (e.g., alm_create_test_run).

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 implies the tool should be used to change the status of a test run, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, which leaves some ambiguity.

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