Replace the full content of an existing test to update its definition, using the same validation rules as creating a new test.
Replaces the full content of an existing test (same validation as test_create).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the test to replace | |
| content | Yes | Test content: JSON string or object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Replaces' which implies destructive mutation, and the validation reference adds some constraint info. But it does not disclose error behavior for nonexistent names, return values, or whether old content is irreversibly lost beyond the obvious implication. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence with the action verb front-loaded. It conveys the core purpose and a key constraint (validation parity) with zero wasted words. The parenthetical reference is efficient and informative.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description combined with the schema is mostly sufficient for calling the tool. However, the absence of annotations leaves gaps around error handling and side effects; the description mentions replacement but not what happens if the test does not exist. The validation reference partially mitigates this, but overall it is only minimally complete.
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 both parameters already described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal semantic value by emphasizing 'full content' and referencing validation rules, but it does not significantly deepen understanding of the name or content parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Replaces') and resource ('full content of an existing test') that clearly distinguishes this from test_create, test_rename, and test_duplicate. The phrase 'full content' unambiguously signals overwrite semantics rather than partial updates.
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 usage context: use when you need to replace an existing test's entire content. The reference to 'same validation as test_create' provides implicit consistency guidance. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the action itself makes the main use case clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.