update_suite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update' and does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether suite_id is immutable, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like.

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 short and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy. It conveys almost no information beyond what the tool name already provides.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine which fields may be changed, whether updates are additive or destructive to unspecified fields, or what a successful update returns. The schema helps with parameter names but not behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters and their types are already documented. The description adds no semantic nuance beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate for a coverage gap, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Update' and resource 'test suite', so the basic operation is somewhat clear. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not specify what aspects of the suite are updatable or how it differs from other update tools beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_suite, delete_suite, or update_project. The description provides no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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