update_manual_test_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses key behaviors: comments require PAT owner as author, server enforces a 20-comment cap with rejection past the cap, Jira issue linking falls back to plain text stubs when Jira is not connected or ticket not found, duplicate issue links are silently skipped, and attachments have a 10MB limit. These are valuable insights beyond basic 'updates' semantics.

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 longer than average but structured efficiently. It opens with a clear purpose, then gives usage guidance, then details specific behaviors for comments and issues. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy with schema descriptions could be trimmed (e.g., issue resolution detail is repeated in the schema). Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 3 required params, a nested updates object with many fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: partial update semantics, comment cap, Jira fallback, and attachment limits. However, it does not describe the return value on success (e.g., whether the updated test case is returned), which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explicitly clarifying the partial-update behavior ('Provide only the fields you want to update'), and by providing usage examples for comments and issues (e.g., 'pass updates.comments as an array of strings'). This goes beyond schema descriptions and helps correct invocation.

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's purpose: 'Update an existing manual test case' with specific actions ('modify test case details, steps, status, priority'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_manual_test_case' and 'update_run_test_case' by explicitly targeting existing manual test cases. The verb 'update' and resource 'manual test case' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to modify test case details, steps, status, priority, or any other fields' and instructs to provide only fields to update. It gives concrete guidance for comments and Jira issues. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., update_run_test_case for run-level updates), so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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