update_test_plan

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

The description discloses partial update behavior (omitted fields unchanged), warns against sending empty placeholders, and notes return value {key}. These details add value beyond the idempotentHint annotation, with no contradictions.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences), front-loading the core action and partial update nature, then adding essential constraints and return info. No unnecessary details.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the most critical aspects: partial update, key constraints, and return value. It references create_test_plan for additional details, which is acceptable but could include a brief example for completeness.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds crucial context: partial update semantics, immutability of projectKey (though not a direct parameter but implied), and constraints inherited from create_test_plan. This enriches understanding 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 the tool updates a Zephyr Scale test plan via PUT, specifying it's a partial update and distinct from create or delete operations. It provides the HTTP method and key constraints, making the 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 implies usage for updating existing test plans and warns about partial updates and constraints (e.g., projectKey unchangeable). It does not explicitly compare to siblings like create_test_plan or update_test_case, but the partial update nature and references to create_test_plan constraints provide sufficient guidance.

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