Update a Test Manager Test Case Instance Step

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: that status updates do not roll up, attachment_urls must be file keys (raw URLs silently fail), requires at least one field to change, and it's a persistent action. No contradictions.

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 thorough and front-loaded with the main purpose, then detailed usage and warnings. Slightly verbose due to necessary nuance, but every sentence is informative. Slightly longer than minimal, but justified.

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 the tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and four parameters, the description covers identification, field semantics, side effects, prerequisites (upload attachment), and behavioral nuances. No gaps remain.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully: explains the status enum, remarks as string, attachment_urls as array of file keys (with nuance), and test_run_step_id as string. Each parameter's meaning and constraints are clear.

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 it updates one step's status, remarks, and/or attachment_urls within a single test case instance, identified by test_run_step_id. It distinguishes from related tools like tm.update_testCaseInstance by noting that step status updates do not roll up to the instance's overall result.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (updating a step), how to get the step ID (from get_testCaseInstanceById), and what fields can be changed. It also warns not to expect automatic rollup and not to call speculatively, providing clear when-not-to-use context.

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