Update Test Case

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial update, replacement semantics for steps and attachments, and preservation of omitted fields. It does not cover error handling or response structure, but goes beyond annotations with concrete details.

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 86 words, front-loaded with purpose and a clear warning, followed by concise behavioral rules. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the structure is efficient with no 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?

Given the complexity (23 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential partial update behavior and key replacement semantics. It lacks details on return value, error states, and the confirm safety parameter, but the overall guidance is sufficient for typical usage.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining that steps and attachments replace all existing counterparts, which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. This clarifies the cumulative behavioral impact of these parameters.

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 tool updates an existing test case in Allure TestOps, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_test_case, delete_test_case, and get_test_case_details by explicitly targeting modification of existing objects.

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 provides guidance on partial update behavior: only supplied fields are sent, steps and attachments replace existing ones, omitted fields preserve current values. It also warns about destructive nature. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like delete+create for full replacement, but the context is sufficient for appropriate use.

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