post_batch_update_test_runs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, cautioning the agent that this operation mutates data non-idempotently with potential side effects. The description adds limited behavioral context by noting partial updates and uniform application of fields, but does not elaborate on permission requirements, error handling, or the exact nature of destructiveness beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose but repeats itself ('Update multiple test runs. Update multiple test runs at once...'), adding redundancy without new information. It is appropriately short overall but not maximally efficient.

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 annotations cover safety traits and there is no output schema, the description is partially complete but lacks critical details about the body array structure and specific updateable fields. For a batch update tool requiring structured input, this leaves gaps in how to correctly invoke it, especially since schema descriptions are absent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate entirely, yet it only vaguely mentions 'test run identifiers' and 'fields you want to update.' It fails to detail any specific parameters like 'tags', 'priority', 'starts_at', 'ends_at', or 'test_environment_id' that the schema lists without descriptions, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 specific verb+resource combination ('Update multiple test runs... in a single request'), and it distinguishes from the single-item sibling 'put_test_run' by explicitly describing batch behavior. An agent can identify that this tool updates multiple test runs at once rather than one at a time.

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 implies usage context by stating 'in a single request' and 'all selected test runs will receive the same field values,' which suggests when a batch update is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'put_test_run' or 'post_batch_delete_test_runs,' leaving some inference required.

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