put_test_case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: partial-update semantics implying unspecified fields are preserved (rather than cleared). It still omits permission requirements and the effect of the destructive hint, so it is good but not complete.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the opening two sentences are redundant restatements of the same instruction, wasting space. The third sentence is the only one that adds new information, so the description is readable but not tightly written.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations, a nested body, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and partial-update behavior adequately. It remains incomplete on the query relations parameter and gives an inaccurate field enumeration, leaving an agent without full knowledge of what it can actually set.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it only names a few fields and two of those ("steps", "priority") do not exist in the schema, risking misdirection. It also says nothing about the path.testCaseId identifier or the query `with` relations parameter, adding no valid meaning beyond the (already-descriptive) nested body schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update a test case using its unique identifier") and lists modifiable field categories, so the intent is unmistakable and distinguishable from post_test_case/delete_test_case. However, the first two sentences restate the same fact, and the field list ("description, steps, ... priority") does not match the actual schema fields (expected_result, instructions, etc.), slightly muddying what can be changed.

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?

It states the partial-update mechanic ("only need to include the fields you want to change"), which is useful invocation guidance, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as post_batch_update_test_cases, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directed.

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