update_execution

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: status values are project-configurable, setting status follows a during/after pattern, and releaseIds is a replace-all operation. It also warns that this tool does not modify case results, which is important behavioral information not captured by 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it opens with the tool's core purpose, immediately gives the key status workflow, and then clarifies alternative tools. Every sentence carries operational value, with no wasted words.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and meaningful behavioral traps like replace-all release links and project-custom statuses, the description covers all critical operational needs. It also references the exact sibling tools an agent might confuse it with and provides a concrete fallback for discovering valid status values.

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?

The schema already covers 70% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds practical semantics on top: status should be in_testing while running and passed/failed/blocked when done, and releaseIds replaces the entire release-link set. It does not elaborate on every param interpretation, but the added guidance is valuable.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('a Manual Test Execution's own fields'), and distinguishes the tool from sibling operations by explicitly saying it does not change case results. It is instantly clear what this tool is for and what it is not 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: use this for execution-level fields and status, use report_case_result for case results, and use set_execution_source_status for source group status. It also instructs calling get_project to confirm project-specific status values rather than hardcoding.

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