cortex_update_test

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without explaining side effects, permissions, or implications of updating a test's status (e.g., irreversible? requires confirmation?). The optional 'error_output' parameter's role is not clarified for pass vs fail.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity; a slightly longer description would improve clarity without becoming overly verbose.

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?

Given complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or how the tool integrates with other cortex tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use it reliably.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'Pass or fail' which aligns with the 'status' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description of each parameter.

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 'Pass or fail a test' clearly identifies the verb (pass/fail) and resource (test), distinguishing it from sibling 'cortex_add_test' which creates. However, it could be more specific about the update nature implied by the tool name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cortex_add_test' or 'cortex_update_feature'. Prerequisites (e.g., test must exist) are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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