Update test case

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important semantics: priority/category accept names, status accepts a name resolved to id or status_id, and text replaces the entire field verbatim with no merging. This goes beyond the schema and warns about destructive text replacement, though it does not cover all mutation side effects.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded ('TestCase.update'), and every clause adds non-redundant detail about field resolution and text semantics.

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 the tool has 12 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers only the most complex fields (status, priority, category, text). It omits a general note that unspecified fields remain unchanged and does not describe the response shape, validation errors, or permissions. Still, it addresses the riskiest behaviors, making it minimally adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarification by explaining that status names are resolved to IDs, that priority/category accept names, and that text replacement is verbatim Markdown with no section parsing. This complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 opens with 'TestCase.update', clearly identifying the action (update) and resource (test case). It differentiates from sibling update tools like kiwi_update_plan and kiwi_update_run by explicitly naming the test-case resource.

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 implies this tool updates an existing test case but does not explicitly state when to use it versus creating a case or searching for one. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied by the tool's name and required 'id' parameter.

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