update_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms the tool mutates an existing test and that updates are partial, but it doesn't state permission requirements, whether omitted fields are unchanged or cleared, or how concurrent edits are handled.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, then a compact parameter list. No filler sentences, though the 'Args:' block format is functional rather than polished.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description gives adequate but thin coverage, lacking permission, partial-update semantics, and error detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does list and briefly explain all five parameters (test_id, title, description, version, tags). However, the explanations are terse and don't clarify null vs omitted semantics, which matters since many fields default to null.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (test), and clarifies scope with 'partial update'. Siblings like create_test, get_test, delete_test, list_tests are distinguishable by verb, though the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 such as create_test or the finding update tools. The 'partial update' note implies only fields to change need to be supplied, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of siblings.

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