Add TestRail Case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('Create a new TestRail test case'), mentions important prerequisites (gathering data from other tools), and hints at complexity (custom fields may be required by project configuration). However, it doesn't explicitly mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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 appropriately sized (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what the tool does, second provides crucial prerequisite guidance, third offers alternative approach. Could be slightly more concise by combining the last two sentences.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no annotations/output schema, the description does well by emphasizing prerequisites and complexity. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (no output schema exists) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for a mutation operation.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it references the same tools (get_sections, get_case_fields) that the schema descriptions mention. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new TestRail test case in a specific section' - a clear verb ('Create') + resource ('TestRail test case') + location constraint ('in a specific section'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_case' (modification) and 'get_case' (retrieval).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Before creating a case, gather required information using get_projects, get_suites, get_sections, and get_case_fields tools' and 'Or ask the user to provide the information if not provided.' It names specific prerequisite tools and offers an alternative approach when data is missing.

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