Create test case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add valuable behavior about template-dependent requirements (featureScript required for bdd, stepsTemplate required for steps), but it does not mention permissions, side effects, return values, or behavior on missing/existing keys. The core behavior 'create a test case' is implied by the name and description, but operational expectations are incomplete.

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 compact and well-structured, opening with the primary action and then using a bulleted list for template variants. Every sentence adds information, and the conditional requirements are front-loaded rather than buried in prose.

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 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the most critical selection logic (template styles and their required fields) but leaves some operational context implicit, such as where projectKey/sectionKey come from and what the tool returns. The parameter schema covers individual field meanings, so the missing context is moderate rather than severe.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining how the `template` enum maps to specific parameters and conditional requirements, which the schema alone does not fully convey. The minor use of snake_case `expected_result` versus the schema's `expectedResult` introduces slight ambiguity but does not seriously undermine the added meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Create a test case in a module (section)." It enumerates the four template styles, which gives immediate, concrete meaning to the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from update/read/module tools. The creation scope and template variants are 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 establishes clear context: use this tool to create a test case in a module, and select a template style. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_test_case or create_requirement, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the creation semantics and template routing make the appropriate use fairly obvious.

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