Save or update a named test suite under the active project, including its steps and optional description, so API tests can be reused and maintained.
Save or update a named test suite in the database under the active project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Suite name (unique per project) | |
| steps | Yes | Array of step objects (same format as test_run_suite steps) | |
| description | No | Optional suite description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the write targets the database under the active project; it says nothing about whether saving an existing name overwrites or merges steps, whether that is destructive, what permissions are needed, or what is returned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
It is one front-loaded sentence with no filler, and scope is stated before anything else. It is arguably too terse given the undisclosed upsert semantics, but there is no wasted text.
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?
With a simple three-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, but an agent cannot tell from it whether an existing suite is overwritten or whether a result body comes back. The active-project dependency is covered, which is the main contextual unknown.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the per-project uniqueness of `name` and the step format. The description adds only the active-project scoping, which the schema does not state, 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?
The description names a specific verb pair (save/update) and resource (named test suite) with an explicit scope (under the active project), which clearly separates it from suite_load, suite_list, and suite_delete. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
'Save or update' implies an upsert, so an agent can infer it is the write path versus suite_load's read path, but this is never stated. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, no guidance on when to prefer this over suite_load, and no note on what happens when the name already exists in the project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.