update_test_plan

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's genuinely additive contribution is the PUT clearing semantics and the required-field set, but it says nothing about scope of destruction, permissions, or what an omitted-versus-empty field means.

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 tight sentences with no wasted wording; the operation and its PUT semantics are front-loaded and the destructive clearing warning follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 destructive, open-world mutation whose only parameter is an untyped nested object, the definition supplies the essential required keys and the clearing behavior, which is the minimum an agent needs to avoid accidental data loss. It remains thin on what the full payload may contain and on the response, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 0% and the single payload parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties:true, so the description must carry the load and does partially by naming the required keys id, name and projectId. It leaves the rest of the accepted payload undocumented, so an agent still cannot tell what other fields are legal or how nested values are shaped.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Replace a test plan') and clarifies the HTTP semantics with '(PUT)', which distinguishes it from a partial update and from create_test_plan. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting with the partial-update path an agent might reach for.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Replace a test plan (PUT)' and the warning that unsent fields are cleared together suggest this is for full overwrites rather than targeted edits, so an agent can infer when to avoid it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite or permission guidance, and no named alternative.

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