update_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. It discloses the key limitation that no custom field parameter exists, which is helpful, but it does not mention mutation consequences, required permissions, return behavior, or version handling. It is better than a bare statement but still leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and wastes no words. It earns every sentence by combining purpose, identification method, and a critical alternative in a compact format.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It explains only the tool's high-level purpose and one exclusion, but omits parameter semantics, return value, error conditions, and behavioral nuances, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the external ID and the absence of a custom field parameter. The other seven parameters (steps, summary, version, importance, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for building a correct request.

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 fields on an existing test case and explicitly identifies the required identifier (external id). It also distinguishes itself from sibling update_custom_field_value by noting that tl.updateTestCase has no custom field parameter, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 concrete guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: use it for updating standard test case fields, and use update_custom_field_value for custom field values. This explicit alternative and exclusion is exactly what the dimension asks for.

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