update_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation (implied by 'update'), what permissions are required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., partial vs. full updates). This leaves critical gaps for safe tool invocation.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it's optimal.

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 the high complexity (20 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, return values, or usage context. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with many undocumented inputs.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'code', 'id', or any of the 20 parameters mean, their formats, or constraints. This forces the agent to guess parameter purposes, which is inadequate for such a complex tool.

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 'Update an existing test case' clearly states the action (update) and resource (test case), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_plan or update_suite, nor does it specify what aspects of a test case can be updated beyond the generic term.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing test case ID), compare with create_case for new cases, or explain when to use update_case versus other update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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