update_test_suite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the tool accepts suite ID or name and performs a partial update (only provided fields are modified), which aligns with idempotency. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no filler, and the key information is front-loaded ('Update a test suite'). Every word adds value, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 (not detailed but indicated as present), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, identification, and update semantics. It does not need to explain return values. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidelines, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context that 'project' and 'suite' serve as identifiers, and that optional fields are only modified if provided. This is helpful but does not significantly extend beyond the schema 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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('a test suite'), and specifies how to identify the suite ('Accepts suite ID or name') and the nature of the update ('Only provided fields are modified'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_suite or delete_test_suite.

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 for partial updates via 'Only provided fields are modified' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating or deleting a test suite). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, making it adequate but not proactive.

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