update_case

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond them: the note is 'internal', i.e. not customer-visible. However, it does not explain why the call is non-idempotent, whether status changes notify the customer, or whether the update is reversible — notable 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?

A single tight sentence with the action and both effects front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse, but that gap is better attributed to completeness than to wordiness.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition should state whether the note is appended or replaces an existing one, whether status transitions are constrained, and what the caller gets back. None of that is present, so an agent can invoke it but cannot predict its effect.

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 coverage is 0%, and the schema itself only names the fields; the enum values for status are self-documenting. The description does add real meaning for two parameters ('internal note' implies internal-only visibility; 'set case status' implies overwrite rather than append), but leaves case_id and note length/append-vs-replace semantics unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Set') and two concrete resources (case status, internal note), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the read-only siblings like get_case. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling by name.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites (required permissions, whether the case must be open), and no statement of what happens downstream when a status is set. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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