update_manual_run

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

Discloses mutation behavior, write permission requirements, and the constraint that closed runs are mostly read-only. Warns about tags format (must be JSON array). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it does well but could mention idempotency or error handling.

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?

Concise paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficiently conveys purpose, constraints, and critical format note.

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?

Comprehensive for a mutation tool with 3 required params and no output schema. Covers allowed fields, special behavior for closed runs, and tags format. Lacks mention of return value or side effects, but sufficient for typical use.

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%, but the description adds significant value: lists allowed fields inside updates object, specifies tags format, and clarifies that runId can be internal _id or counter-style ID. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Modify an existing manual test run' with a specific verb and resource. It lists allowed fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_manual_run and update_manual_test_case.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: send only changed fields in updates object, requires write permission, and notes that closed runs are read-only except for releaseId. However, it does not name an alternative tool for modifying closed runs beyond releaseId.

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