updateCase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only specified fields will be updated') and a dependency (templateId=2 for customStepsSeparated). However, it omits details about error handling if caseId doesn't exist, return value, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with clear labeling (REQUIRED, OPTIONAL, NOTE) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler.

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 13 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the essential usage patterns and dependencies. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and permissions. With no output schema, some more completeness would improve it, but it is still fairly comprehensive for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between templateId=2 and customStepsSeparated, providing an example for customFields, and clarifying when to use customSteps/customExpected vs customStepsSeparated. This goes beyond the schema 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 an existing test case, lists required and optional parameters, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addCase (which adds) and deleteCase (which deletes). The verb 'Updates' with resource 'test case' is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly states which parameters are required (caseId) and optional, and provides a note about templateId=2 for customStepsSeparated. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives like addCase or deleteCase, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative contexts.

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