update_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only explicitly passed fields are updated and that the response includes rollback values with previous values, especially for steps. This covers the most important side effects and rollback capability, though auth and failure modes are not mentioned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and scope, the second delivers the key behavioral and rollback information. Critical details are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For an update operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, and response rollback content. The schema covers the parameter semantics. Missing explicit sibling differentiation and error/auth context, but this is not a major gap given the strong schema and concise tool description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter in detail. The description adds partial-update semantics but does not meaningfully clarify individual parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 operation ('Update') and the resource ('AIO test case'), and enumerates the exact fields that can be changed. This makes it immediately distinguishable from create_case and the read-only get/search siblings.

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 usage context is implied but not explicit: updating an existing test case versus creating a new one or retrieving one. There is no direct mention of create_case or search/get alternatives, so the agent must infer when to choose this tool.

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