update_case

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

Annotations only indicate false for readOnly, idempotent, and destructive, which are not very informative. The description adds the behavioral trait of partial updates, but doesn't disclose return values, side effects, or error handling beyond the schema. It's adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It's concise and well-structured.

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 the essential update behavior and partial-update semantics, but it doesn't mention what the tool returns or any side-effect beyond the update. Since there is no output schema, the description could do more to explain the response, but the key operational details are present.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that only specified fields are changed (partial update). This goes beyond the schema's description of the fields parameter, which focuses on the flat-map structure.

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 'Update a test case in TestRail' with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool update_cases, but the singular 'a test case' and the tool name imply single-case updates, making the purpose clear.

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 gives clear usage context: it requires knowing valid field names from get_case_fields and supports partial updates, which tells the agent how to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates), but the prerequisite and partial-update behavior are useful guidance.

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