update_case

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the operation is a partial merge, and unknown field names are rejected because names must come from get_case_fields. Consistent with the annotations.

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?

Three short lines, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the prerequisite and the partial-update caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite tool, the partial-update contract, and the field-name constraint. Return behavior after the update is unaddressed, but that is a minor gap given the schema's richness.

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%, including a detailed note on how 'fields' is merged into the request body. The description restates the partial-update rule but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a test case in TestRail') with a clear scope qualifier ('partial updates'). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_cases (plural), so an agent must infer which one to pick from the singular/plural naming alone.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the right helper: valid field names come from get_case_fields, and 'only specify the fields you want to change' tells the agent how to call it. No guidance on when to prefer this over update_cases, and no stated exclusions.

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