testrail_update_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds nothing beyond the name. It does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably over-terse for a mutation tool with four parameters.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema should disclose more: which fields can be modified, partial-vs-full update semantics, and required permissions. The description supplies none of this, leaving the agent under-informed about a state-changing operation.

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%, and each parameter already carries its own description ('Optional new name', 'The ID of the test run to update'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing test run), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like testrail_add_run, testrail_close_run, or testrail_delete_run beyond the verb.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus testrail_close_run or testrail_add_run, and no preconditions (e.g., run must exist, must be open) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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