Update a requirement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional move-to-parent-module behavior, but does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacement, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and fields, followed by the optional move behavior. No extraneous content; every word earns its place.

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 six-parameter update tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits important behavioral details such as update semantics and any side effects. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by grouping name/description/custom fields and clarifying parentId's optional move, but it does not provide information beyond the schema's own parameter 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 identifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'requirement', and specifies the fields (name, description, custom fields) and optional parent module move. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qtest_get_requirement (read) and qtest_create_requirement (create).

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 usage (when you need to modify an existing requirement) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus creating a requirement or updating a module, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no differentiation from alternatives beyond the inherent purpose.

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