put_test_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: partial-update semantics. However, it stays silent on a real ambiguity for a destructive mutation, namely whether array fields like test_cases or users replace or append to existing values, and whether untouched fields are preserved.

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 opening two sentences are near-verbatim duplicates ("Update a test run. Update a test run using its unique identifier."), which wastes the highest-value slot. The partial-update note is correctly positioned but the field enumeration is a partial restatement of the schema rather than new information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the definition covers the essential mechanics of a partial update and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is still missing what an agent would want before invoking: array-replacement behavior and whether omitted fields are cleared, left alone, or reverted.

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 reported at 0% (neither "path" nor "body" carries a description), but every nested body property is individually documented in the schema. The description names only a subset of those fields (name, environment, test cases, users, custom fields) and omits tags, draft, priority, dates, milestone_id, and subscribers, so it neither fully compensates for the coverage gap nor adds syntax beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update a test run using its unique identifier") and enumerates the mutable surface (name, environment, test cases, users, custom fields), so an agent can distinguish it from get_test_run or delete_test_run. It stops short of naming a competing sibling such as post_batch_update_test_runs or move_test_run, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

"This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change" gives a usable condition for how to call it, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this single-record update over the bulk variants, nor any prerequisite or permission context. Usage is implied rather than scoped against alternatives.

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