alm_update_test_case

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

Describes auto_checkout behavior, return format, and field requirements, but does not discuss error scenarios, permission needs, or other side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Brief and focused, listing common fields and args in a readable format. Could be slightly better organized but no superfluous content.

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 all parameters, return structure, and key behavioral details (auto-checkout). Missing error handling and permission context, but sufficient for a mutation tool with 3 params and no output schema.

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 0%, and description fully compensates by explaining test_id as ALM ID, fields as a dict with example, and auto_checkout default effect. Adds significant meaning beyond 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?

States 'Update any field(s) on an existing test case' with specific verb and resource, lists common fields, and clearly distinguishes from sibling read/create/checkout tools.

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?

Clearly explains when to use (updating an existing test case) and the prerequisite of checkout with automatic handling via auto_checkout. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is sufficient.

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