testneo_update_test_case_nlp

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 mentions returning a 'verification snapshot' and optionally rewriting commands, but does not disclose whether the update is destructive, whether idempotency is enforced (though an idempotency_key parameter exists), or any side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences succinctly convey the core action and an optional feature. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the structure could be improved by listing parameters or providing a clearer separation of required vs optional behavior.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, default behavior when route_hardening is omitted, the role of idempotency_key, and whether the update is incremental or overwriting. The current description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters beyond implying test_case_id and nlp_commands are used. The complex nested route_hardening object is not described, and the purpose of idempotency_key is omitted. The description adds minimal value over the schema's raw structure.

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 NLP commands'), the specific resource ('for a specific test case ID'), and the return value ('return verification snapshot'). It also mentions an optional feature ('optionally rewrites Navigate-to lines using route hardening'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like testneo_apply_route_hardening that handle route hardening separately.

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 mentions that route hardening is 'same env / route_hardening as generate', implying consistency with another tool, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like testneo_apply_route_hardening or testneo_generate_tests_from_context. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.

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