update_csm_case

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important permission requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which is not captured by annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and it clarifies the write nature of the operation.

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 a single sentence that states the action, target, and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No 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?

Given only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the core purpose and permission constraint. It could be slightly enhanced by noting that updates are partial (only specified fields), but that is an implied attribute of a fields-map parameter and not a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both sys_id and fields. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond restating 'update fields,' so it does not compensate beyond the schema's baseline. The nested 'fields' object lacks examples or accepted value formats, but the schema already carries the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and precise resource ('existing CSM case'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_csm_case, get_csm_case, list_csm_cases, and close_csm_case. The phrase 'existing' correctly restricts scope to updates, not creation.

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 clear prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') and implies the tool is for modifying an existing case, not for creation or retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when using the generic update_record tool.

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