update_test_suite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious behavioral trait: tl.updateTestSuite may not exist on standard installations, and a pre-check is required. This adds valuable context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover all side effects or return behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the caveat earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, so a richer description is expected. It provides the main purpose and the critical availability caveat, but omits return value expectations, error handling, and any constraints on parentId or order. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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. It lists the updatable fields ('name, details, parent, order') which map to parameters, but does not add any deeper semantics like value constraints, relationships between parentId and existing suites, or behavior of the 'order' parameter. This is a minimal mapping, not sufficient compensation for the lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('existing test suite') and lists the updatable fields (name, details, parent, or order). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_suite and delete_test_suite.

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 caveat explicitly instructs running list_available_api_methods first to confirm the API exists, which is a clear when-to-use prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for create/delete, but the purpose already implies the context clearly.

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