Update Qmetry test plan status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update' but does not mention idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the status does not exist. The schema provides parameter details but the description lacks behavioral context.

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, very concise. It could be slightly more informative, but it efficiently conveys the basic purpose without redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain return values or side effects. It does not. Additionally, it does not clarify the difference between required and optional parameters, leaving the user to infer from the schema alone.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain relationships between parameters or any constraints.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('existing test plan status'), and the system ('QMetry'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create' or 'delete' test plan statuses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to look up statusId from the get-statuses API, or when to use update instead of create or delete.

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