update-test-case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that tags, links, and members are replaced entirely ('replaces all'), which is important behavioral detail. It does not explicitly state partial update behavior, but the schema with all optional fields implies it. Overall, it provides good behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and supported fields, the second directs to alternatives. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has high complexity with 13 parameters and no output schema. The description covers what fields can be updated and provides exclusion guidance. However, it does not describe return values or prerequisites like permissions. Given the complexity, it is adequate but could be slightly richer on behavioral expectations (e.g., partial update confirmation).

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only listing a subset of fields as examples. It does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters. The description's mention of dedicated tools for certain fields is more about usage than parameter semantics.

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 and lists specific fields it supports (name, description, tags, links, members). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that custom fields, issues, relations, requirements, and test keys should be handled by dedicated set-* tools. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from alternatives.

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 explicitly says when not to use this tool: 'For custom fields, issues, relations, requirements, and test keys — use dedicated set-* tools.' This provides clear context and directs the agent to appropriate alternatives, meeting the highest standard for usage guidance.

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