update_test_plan

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms partial updates and the null-to-clear behavior. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and no destructiveness, so the description supplements without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential usage 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the description's coverage of partial updates and null clearing, the description is complete for this update tool. Some might expect a note that the test plan must exist, but that is implied by update context and sibling get/list tools.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying partial update semantics ('Only provided fields are modified') and reinforcing the null clearing behavior for description. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'update' and resource 'test plan', and explicitly lists the modifiable fields (name or description). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like create_test_plan, delete_test_plan, and add_test_plan_item.

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 states 'Only provided fields are modified' and explains how to clear the description with null, providing clear partial update semantics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but context from siblings makes usage obvious.

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