Update test plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists updatable fields but does not explain partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved), permissions required, error behavior, or response format. The description only names fields and provides no additional 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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and lists all key fields. However, it is so terse that it borders on cryptic, but it earns its place by being efficient and direct.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain that the 'id' parameter is required, how the update behaves (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), or what is returned. The sibling list includes create and update tools, but the description does not help differentiate or provide essential operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description merely repeats field names ('name, type, product, version, text, active flag') without adding extra meaning, such as relationships or constraints. It does not compensate for the schema's coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'TestPlan.update' is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly indicates updating a test plan. The title 'Update test plan' reinforces this, and the listed fields (name, type, product, version, text, active flag) distinguish it from sibling tools like kiwi_create_plan.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or differences from related tools like kiwi_create_plan or kiwi_update_case. The API method line implies usage but offers no explicit context.

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