update_cases

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

Annotations indicate only that the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the dependency on get_case_fields and the need for valid field names, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial/merge or full replacement, or how errors are handled beyond the schema's note. Some behavioral context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 three sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and efficiency comparison. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the most important information (bulk update) is front-loaded.

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 bulk mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers purpose, usage alternative, and prerequisite. It lacks details about return value or partial failure behavior, but the rich schema and sibling context compensate somewhat. A more complete description might mention whether the update merges or replaces existing fields.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters: case_ids is a simple array, and fields is fully explained with format, example, and error conditions. The description's mention of 'same field values' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool performs a bulk update of multiple test cases with the same field values, using a specific verb ('bulk update') and resource ('test cases'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_case tool by noting it is more efficient than calling update_case multiple times, and it mentions the prerequisite of get_case_fields for valid field names.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance by comparing to update_case, stating 'More efficient than calling update_case multiple times,' which implies the appropriate context for using this tool. It also clarifies that get_case_fields must be called first to obtain valid field names, serving as a clear prerequisite.

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