Update case

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the title_locked behavior after votes, the editable state window (jury_selection/open), the fact that other fields are rejected with 400, the audit log event (trial_updated), and that the url/slug never changes. It also states the return shape. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core action, the permission/state constraints, the error codes, the audit log, the URL stability, the return shape, and the sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the action and constraints, and the sibling references are at the end where they belong.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers permissions, state restrictions, error conditions, side effects (audit log, URL stability), return shape, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by restating the 'at least one' requirement and the title_locked condition, and by noting the return shape. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the schema is already thorough, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a case's title and/or description after creation') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming tribeunal_close_case, tribeunal_delete_case, and tribeunal_update_side_image as alternatives. It clearly states what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 states when to use this tool (after creation, owner or admin only), what to send (at least one of title/description), and names alternatives for other operations (close, delete, update side image). It also gives error conditions (409 title_locked, 409 case_not_editable, 400 field_not_editable) that help an agent decide whether this is the right call.

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