update_csm_case

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

Annotations already indicate read/write (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotence (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the requirement for WRITE_ENABLED=true. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like partial vs. full update, error handling, or side effects.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a parenthetical requirement. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, covering essential information without any filler.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or state changes after update. It is adequate for a simple mutation tool but could benefit from mentioning what the tool returns or any side effects beyond the WRITE_ENABLED precondition.

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 provides full 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (sys_id and fields). The description redundantly says 'update fields' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already offers.

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 action (update fields) and the resource (existing CSM case). It distinguishes from sibling tools like close_csm_case and get_csm_case by specifying 'update fields' and the requirement parameter.

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 provides a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_record or close_csm_case. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are included.

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