forge_unit_test_set_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states partial update (only provided fields changed), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges arrays like unit_test_runs), or return value. Minimal 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, no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second specifies the behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify return values or effects, but it does not. It also lacks mention of idempotency or error handling. However, for a simple update tool, it is minimally adequate given the schema covers parameters well.

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%, with each parameter having a helpful description. The tool description adds only the partial update context, which is already implied by the method. As per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description adds marginal extra value.

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 'Update a unit test set', providing a specific verb and resource. The added 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies partial update behavior. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling create tool beyond the verb, so not a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_unit_test_set_create, or any prerequisites or context. The description lacks usage direction.

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