update_case

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

The description discloses the partial update behavior, the flat-map merging into the API request, and the error condition for unknown field names. Annotations already show this is not read-only, so the description adds meaningful context without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no redundant information. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, prerequisite, and behavior. Efficient 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?

Given the two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: required inputs, dependency on another tool, and error handling. It does not describe the return value, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Slight room to mention that the update returns the updated case, but not necessary.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds substantial meaning: examples for both parameters, format for case_id ('C123'), structure of fields, and cross-referencing get_case_fields. This greatly aids parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 distinguishes from siblings like 'add_case' (create) and 'get_case' (read), making the tool's purpose 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 advises using 'get_case_fields' to know valid field names and explains partial updates ('only specify the fields you want to change'). It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is clear.

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