update_test_suite_items

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'this does a GET-then-merge so existing suite fields are preserved,' revealing the behavior is non-destructive and preserves fields outside items. This adds valuable transparency.

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: the first states the main action, the second details type-specific parameters and behavioral note. Every sentence is functional, no wasted words, and the structure is efficient.

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 doesn't explain return values but the merge behavior is explained. It covers the essential behavioral contract for an update operation. Some missing details (e.g., error scenarios, prerequisites) but sufficient for typical use.

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 value by explaining the item structure and tying parameter usage to item types (e.g., folderId for dynamic types, testCaseIds for static), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's individual 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 states the tool replaces items in a test suite, specifies what an item consists of (UUID, type, nested references), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on item replacement rather than other suite or test operations.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, it provides detailed guidance on how to configure items based on type (STATIC vs DYNAMIC), which helps the agent understand usage context. The sibling tools table shows no other tool does item replacement, so the purpose is clear.

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