Update Test Manager Test Run Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is undocumented, best-effort, changes only run status (not per-instance), and is a persistent action. More detail on failure modes would improve, but current disclosure is adequate.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, caveat (undocumented), and warning (persistent). No wasted words. Front-loaded with main function.

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?

Lacks description of return values or error handling. Given no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns on success/failure. Current description provides enough to use the tool but incomplete for full understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It lists allowed status values and clarifies that test_run_id identifies the run. However, it does not explain the format or source of test_run_id, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool sets the overall status of a test run to specific values, distinguishing it from per-instance status updates. Sibling tools like tm.update_testCaseInstance handle instance-level, so this is well differentiated.

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 guidance: 'Do not call this speculatively - it's a real, persistent action.' It also warns that the endpoint is undocumented. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus alternative tools, though the scope is clear.

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