qase_defect_upsert

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the dual create/update behavior based on 'id', and the effect of setting status to 'resolved'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every clause 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?

Given 9 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but lacks details on update semantics (partial vs full overwrite), response format, and handling of optional fields like 'custom_field'. More completeness would aid the agent.

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 only 44%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning only for 'id' (controls create vs update) and 'status' (can set to resolved). Other parameters like 'tags', 'severity', 'actual_result', and 'attachments' are not explained beyond the schema. 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 clearly states 'Create or update a defect', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes between creation and update based on the presence of 'id', differentiating this tool from sibling tools like qase_case_upsert or qase_run_upsert.

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 clear guidance on when to create (id omitted) vs update (id provided), and includes an example for resolving a defect via status. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like qase_triage_defect, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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