Update a test case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral trait by stating 'Creates a new version in qTest,' which is a non-obvious side effect not evident from the schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or whether permissions are required.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant 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?

The description covers the main purpose, the updatable fields, and a significant side effect (versioning). It lacks mention of what happens to unspecified fields or the return value, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. However, given the tool's scope and the strong schema coverage, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only repeats field names. No explanations of parameter interactions or required identifiers are added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a test case'), and explicitly lists the attributes that can be changed (name, description, precondition, custom fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qtest_create_test_case or qtest_get_test_case.

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 is used when updating an existing test case, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of qtest_create_test_case if the test case already exists'.

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