qase_case_upsert

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's mutation behavior. The description adds value by detailing enum field normalization (labels and numeric IDs accepted) and upsert logic, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, explaining the id behavior, and clarifying enum inputs. No superfluous information; front-loaded and efficient.

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 21 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no description of return values or side effects, the three-sentence description is insufficient. Complex aspects like steps structure and custom fields are unaddressed, leaving agents underinformed.

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 low (48%), and the description adds meaning for the id parameter (create vs. update) and enum fields (label/numeric ID acceptance). However, many parameters (e.g., steps, tags, custom_field) lack explanation. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 states 'Create or update a test case' and clearly distinguishes between create/update based on the id parameter. It differentiates from sibling tools like qase_defect_upsert or qase_run_upsert by specifying the resource (test case).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as qase_defect_upsert or qql_search. The description only explains the id-based behavior but does not provide context for choosing this tool over others.

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