update_suite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what happens during update (partial vs full updates, validation rules, error conditions), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 maximally concise at 4 words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides none of the necessary context about how to use it effectively, what parameters mean, what behaviors to expect, or what results will be returned.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings beyond what's inferable from names. It doesn't explain what 'code', 'id', 'title', 'description', 'preconditions', or 'parent_id' represent in the context of updating a test suite, leaving the agent to guess parameter purposes and formats.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing test suite'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_suite' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_case' or 'update_plan' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing suite ID), when to choose update_suite over create_suite, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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