Update a Test Manager Test Case Instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: only provided fields are changed, at least one field is required, the persistence of the action, and a critical warning about environment_id corruption causing 500 errors. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 well-structured, starting with the core action, then listing fields, then explaining identifiers and sources, and ending with a strong warning. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly lengthy; could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides enough context for using the tool: how to get parameters, what the tool does, and a crucial safety warning. It lacks error handling details (e.g., if test_instance_id doesn't exist) but is otherwise complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose, valid values (status enum), and how to obtain valid IDs (assignee from tm.get_organizationUsers, environment_id from tm.get_environments or existing instances). It compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though not every parameter is covered in equal depth.

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 verb 'updates' and resource 'test case instance's own fields', listing specific fields (status, assignee, environment_id, remarks) and the identifier (test_instance_id). It distinguishes from siblings like tm.bulkUpdate_testCaseInstances by focusing on a single instance.

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 explains when to use the tool (to update specific fields of a single instance), provides sources for parameters (e.g., tm.get_organizationUsers for assignee, tm.get_environments for environment_id), and warns against speculative calls. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tm.bulkUpdate_testCaseInstances or tm.update_testCaseInstanceStep.

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