Update Test Case

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. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset, idempotency, permissions). The schema hints at tag replacement, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond 'update'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second provides exclusion and alternatives. Perfect front-loading.

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?

The description covers purpose and exclusions but lacks details on return value, error cases, and update behavior. Given 14 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but could provide more operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 14 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing a few example fields, which is already covered by the schema.

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 tool updates test case metadata and explicitly lists example fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by stating what it does NOT change (steps, custom fields) and names the appropriate tools for those operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (update metadata) and when not to use it (for steps or custom fields), and directs to specific alternatives (testcase_set_scenario, testcase_update_custom_fields).

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