update_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the summary appears at the top of the exported report and that each change is logged. It does not mention permissions, whether closing a case is reversible, or what happens to prior summary text beyond the logging note.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by practical report context, revision behavior, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers both parameters, report placement, revision behavior, and logging. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance relative to the sibling open_case tool.

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 define both parameters, and it does. It explains that summary is the analysis/conclusions in Markdown and should cite ids, and that status accepts 'open' or 'closed'. The example reinforces both parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: write the case summary and/or set its status. It clearly defines what fields are affected and the allowed status values. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling open_case tool, which also relates to opening cases.

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 useful context for using the tool: cite run and finding ids, revise by calling again, and each change is logged. However, it does not explain when to use update_case(status='open') versus the sibling open_case tool, leaving a meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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