update_test_plan

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

The description discloses the return status (204 on success) but omits other behavioral traits such as whether partial updates are supported, validation rules, or error handling when the test plan is not found. Since no annotations are provided, the description should cover these aspects.

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 with no redundant information. It efficiently states the action and the return code, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the format of customFields, error scenarios, or whether the update is partial, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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?

The description merely repeats the parameter names (priority, custom fields) without adding meaning beyond what the input schema shows. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter values or constraints, but it does not.

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 it updates a test plan's priority or custom fields, differentiating it from sibling tools like create or delete. However, it does not specify whether custom fields are replaced or merged, leaving some ambiguity.

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 like create_test_plan or update_test_case. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the test plan must exist) or conditions under which the update should be performed.

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