update_run

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the fact that it performs an update. It lacks details on side effects, error handling, required permissions, or whether updates are partial.

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 very concise with a single sentence, but it is overly minimal. For a tool with 7 parameters, more structured detail is warranted. It is not appropriately sized, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 complexity of 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of parameters, return values, or how the update behaves (e.g., partial update vs full replacement).

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%, meaning the schema lacks descriptions for 7 parameters. The tool description does not explain any parameter, not even the required run_id, leaving agents to guess the meaning of fields like include_all or milestone_id.

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 the resource 'an existing test run', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_case or update_project. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, missing some specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use update_run vs close_run or delete_run. No context about prerequisites or common use cases is provided.

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