update_test_case

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

It discloses the partial-update behavior and states that the full updated case object including shareUrl is returned, which is useful beyond the annotations. The annotations already mark it as non-read-only, idempotent, and potentially destructive, and the description does not contradict those hints. It adds context without requiring the agent to infer behavior.

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?

Three short sentences convey purpose, behavioral nuance, return value, and a useful practical tip. There is no filler or repetition. The format is efficiently front-loaded with the essential action and semantics.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description includes the key guidance: partial update behavior, current value retrieval, and return shape. Since all parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description does not need to restate them. Nothing critical about calling this tool is missing.

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 the input schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds no per-parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema is rich. The partial-update note adds some context for all optional fields but does not reduce the need to rely on the schema for param-specific 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 identifies the operation ('Update an existing test case') with a specific verb and resource. 'Existing' distinguishes it from create_test_case and delete_test_case, and the scope is unambiguous. No ambiguity remains regarding what the tool acts on.

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 gives practical usage context, especially the tip to call get_test_case first to see current values and the partial-update semantics ('only provided fields are updated'). It does not explicitly contrast with bulk_update_cases or say when to use create instead, but the guidance is clear enough for common use.

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