update_test_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails operationally, what permissions are needed, how partial updates work, or what the response contains. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('existing test case'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_test_case' or explain what distinguishes updating from creating.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_test_case' or 'get_test_case'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing test case key) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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