Update execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that status can be an id or name resolved from the execution run and that comments are handled via a separate add_comment call, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when conflicting parameters are provided. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence that covers the core purpose and key fields. It wastes little space, though the leading 'TestExecution.update:' is internal jargon that repeats the title and could be omitted for clarity.

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 description gives a good overview of what can be updated and mentions the optional comment, but it lacks usage guidance, return value details, and behavioral caveats. Given the 8-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that status accepts either id or name resolved from the execution run, and that the comment parameter triggers a separate TestExecution.add_comment operation. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 clearly states the tool updates a TestExecution and lists the updatable fields (status, build, assignee, dates). It also mentions the optional comment feature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling update tools like kiwi_update_run or kiwi_update_case, so differentiation relies mostly on the title.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes that a comment can be added via TestExecution.add_comment, implying a separate operation, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over kiwi_execution_add_comment or other update tools.

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