update_case

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral detail. It does not explain that this is a partial update, what happens to omitted fields, or what the response looks like. Given no output schema, the description should clarify the tool's effect beyond the annotation hints.

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 of four words, very concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Update'. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it lacks supplementary context that could fit without bloating.

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 a tool with 21 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to clarify that updates are partial, what is returned, or how the many fields interact. The complexity demands a richer 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% with descriptions for all 21 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about parameters; it merely states the action. Thus, no improvement over schema defaults.

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 tool updates an existing test case, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_case or delete_case, but the verb 'update' implies modification, which is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_case (for new cases) or delete_case (to remove). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., case must exist) or scenarios to avoid.

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