put_test_result

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

Annotations declare destructive hint true, open world, non-idempotent, and not readOnly. The description adds only that partial updates are supported. It does not disclose what gets destroyed, that the operation is risky (destructive hint true), permission requirements, or side effects such as relation inclusion. The safety profile is left entirely to annotations while the description offers minimal behavioral context.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the core action, but it wastes a sentence restating the same idea ('Update a test result. Update a test result using its unique identifier.') and then adds a brief note on partial updates. It is not excessively long but includes redundancy.

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 destructive/risky annotations, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the required path parameter, query relation options, and behavioral risks, leaving the agent with little more than the tool name and a vague field list.

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 schema provides essentially no semantic explanation for the parameters. The description only lists 'status, notes, and other fields' which does not match the schema fields (test_result_status_id, description, test_run_id, test_case_id, draft) and omits the required path parameter testResultId and query 'with' relations. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a test result') and repeats the name rather than clarifying scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like put_test_run or mark_test_result_viewed, offering only a generic update statement that restates the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no condition of application. The phrase 'you only need to include the fields you want to change' hints at partial update semantics but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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