alm_update_run_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the update behavior and return value but lacks details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Very concise: a one-line summary, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Covers inputs and return shape, but does not address error handling, prerequisites (e.g., run existence), or permissions. For a simple update tool, it is mostly complete. Could be improved with a note on when the update might fail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: test_run_id, run_step_id, status (with allowed values), and comments (actual result). It also notes the provenance of run_step_id. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema titles.

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?

Clearly states 'Update the status and actual-result comment for a single run step,' specifying the verb, resource, and fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like alm_update_run_status (updates overall run status) and alm_get_run_steps (retrieves steps).

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?

Provides context by explaining that run_step_id comes from alm_get_run_steps and lists allowed status values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like alm_update_run_status, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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