update_test_case

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

No annotations provided; the description bears full burden. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation, but lacks details on destructive nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal additional value beyond the name.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Efficiently conveys the core action and affected fields, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., noting required parameter).

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?

No output schema and 7 parameters including nested objects. Description lacks details on return value, error handling, prerequisites, or behavior when updating partially. For a complex update tool, this is insufficient.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description lists some fields but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states it updates a test case and lists specific fields (input_str, expected_behaviors, other fields). The verb 'Update' and resource 'test case' are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_agent, which also update resources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new test case via create_test_case vs updating). No mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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