update_test_case

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action of updating but does not disclose behaviors such as idempotency, error handling, required permissions, or side effects. Critical gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete example for a complex parameter. Efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has a complex input (payload object) and no output schema. The description does not explain what the response looks like, what constraints exist on payload fields, or how to handle the customFields structure. Incomplete for a mutation tool with nested objects.

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 50% (id described, payload not). The description adds a format example for payload.customFields but does not compensate fully for the missing description of the payload parameter. AdditionalProperties allows any fields, but no guidance is given.

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 'Update an existing test case,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_test_case, get_test_case, and delete_test_case.

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 use for modifying test cases but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like set_test_case_custom_fields or delete_test_case. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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