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 burden and does well by disclosing the dry-run validation vs. commit behavior, the requirement for human approval, and that display_id is assigned by TCM on commit. It stops short of describing validation failures or side effects, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. The REQUIRED dry-run workflow is stated in a deliberate, direct manner without any extraneous content. Every sentence contributes essential operational guidance.

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 10-parameter tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow and key constraints (steps required, dry_run first, display_id on commit). It doesn't explain the return value or failure modes, but the rich schema and concise workflow guidance make the tool usable; a small gap remains regarding what the dry-run summary contains and follow-up actions on validation failure.

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 input schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no new parameter details beyond reinforcing that steps are required (already in schema) and noting that display_id is assigned on commit (a behavioral outcome, not a parameter semantic). Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Create a test case with steps,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this creation tool from sibling tools like update_test_case, get_test_case, and search_suite. The added step requirement and commit workflow reinforce its unique purpose.

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 instructions on when to use dry_run true (first), when to get human approval, and when to commit with dry_run false/omitted. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use this tool at all, so it falls short of a 5.

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