update_test_case_step

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

The description partially discloses behavior: it notes that if expectedResult is provided, the expected result node is created automatically if it does not exist. However, it does not mention whether the update is idempotent, any side effects on related data, or permission requirements. With no annotations, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key details. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 description lacks information about the return value or confirmation of success, which is important for a tool that modifies data. No output schema is provided, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., the updated step or a success status). Additionally, it does not cover error conditions or required permissions.

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 input schema already fully documents the three parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that both body and expectedResult can be updated in one call and by specifying the auto-creation behavior for expectedResult, which goes beyond the schema.

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 a test case step by ID', specifying the verb and resource. It mentions the specific fields that can be updated (body text and expectedResult), which helps distinguish it from sibling update tools like update_test_case or update_shared_step.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_test_case (which updates test case-level fields) or creating a new step. The description does not include any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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