update_test_step_execution

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions the return status 200 with updated data, but does not disclose error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., existence of cycleId/testStepExecutionId), or mutation consequences.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, clear and efficient. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and omitted details like error handling, the description is fairly complete with the return status and parameter source. However, cycleId is required but its context is not explained.

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 covers 80% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying the source of testStepExecutionId (from get_test_cycle_executions), which aids correct usage. Other parameters lack additional context.

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 single step-level execution result within a test case execution, and specifies the source of testStepExecutionId from get_test_cycle_executions, distinguishing it from sibling update_test_execution.

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 implies usage for updating step-level results but does not explicitly exclude or compare with alternatives like update_test_execution. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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