update_case

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a mutation occurs ('Update'), but provides no details on side effects, whether it performs a full replacement or merge, authentication requirements, or what happens to omitted fields. This is a significant gap for a tool with 15 parameters.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than helpfully concise. It lacks any structure or breakdown of the tool's behavior, and fails to include essential details that should be front-loaded, such as which parameters are required or what the update semantics are.

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?

The tool is complex (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), but the description provides almost no context. It does not explain how the update is applied, what the expected response is, how partial vs. full updates work, or any validation rules. An agent given this description would have to guess or rely on external knowledge to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 15 parameters. It does not explain what fields like 'tags', 'rubric', 'expected_output', or 'time_limit_minutes' represent or how they are used. The description provides zero value beyond the raw schema property names.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('custom org case'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_case, get_case, and delete_case. However, it does not specify what 'custom' implies or what a case represents, leaving slight ambiguity.

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. It does not mention that it should be used to modify an existing case, nor does it clarify any prerequisites or constraints, such as whether the case must already exist or whether partial updates are supported.

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