update_test_case

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool fetches the current state and merges changes, preserving unspecified fields. This goes beyond the schema, but does not cover side effects like permissions or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The most important aspect (partial update with merge) is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspect (partial update merge). However, it does not specify return values or potential errors, which could be useful but are not critical for an update operation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the description adds meaning by explaining the intent behind parameter usage: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and that unspecified fields are preserved. This helps agents understand partial updates beyond what schema 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 clearly states the tool updates an existing test case, using the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'test case'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_test_case and delete_test_case by focusing on the update operation.

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 gives clear usage guidance: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and explains the merge behavior. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the partial update pattern is well conveyed, making it clear when it is appropriate.

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