Update Test Plan

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

Description indicates update operation, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). However, it does not elaborate on specifics like whether all metadata is overwritten or only provided fields. The limitation 'currently supports updating the name' adds minimal context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences: first defines the core action, second clarifies the current scope. Front-loaded with essential information, 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?

For a simple metadata update with few parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the supported field (name) and uses standard input schema. Minor improvement could mention return value or side effects, but not essential.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description only adds that it supports updating the name, which matches the 'name' parameter. No additional meaning is provided for 'plan_id' or 'output_format' 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 the tool updates metadata of an existing Test Plan, specifically the name. It distinguishes from siblings like create_test_plan and delete_test_plan by focusing on modification.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_test_plan_content or other update tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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