update_test_case_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a PUT operation (idempotent) and mentions the summary field, but does not disclose permissions, error states (e.g., missing version), or side effects beyond updating the field.

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?

Single concise sentence that includes the HTTP method and path. Every element adds value with no 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 simple field update, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or version existence. With no output schema, more contextual completeness would be beneficial.

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 75%, and the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. It confirms 'summary' as new title but does not elaborate on format or constraints (e.g., max length) for other parameters like versionNo.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'Update the summary (title) on a test case version'. It specifies the HTTP method and path, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like update_test_case_description.

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 updating summary on a version, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_test_case_description for descriptions). No guidance on when not to use.

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