update_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It says 'update' which implies mutation, but it does not state that the existing status will be overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or if there are any side effects. It also omits the PENDING status from the list, which could mislead about allowed values. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key status values. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information. Very concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how success is indicated. It does not mention whether the update is destructive to previous values, whether notes are replaced, or what the response format is. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 75% (id, project, notes have descriptions; status has enum only). The description adds context that the status is for after running a test, which helps interpret the status parameter. However, it lists only three of the four enum values (omitting PENDING), which is slightly misleading. Still, with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Update the status of a test case after running it', specifying the verb (update), resource (test case status), and context (after running). The enumerated statuses (PASS, FAIL, SKIPPED) further clarify the purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_test_case (which creates) and list_test_cases (which lists).

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 phrase 'after running it' implies the intended use case (post-execution), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, such as add_test_case for new test cases. The context is implied rather than stated, so it earns a 3.

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