ado_testsuites_create

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that dynamic suites have read-only membership (changes depend on the WIQL query), that static tests are added manually, and that the operation requires vso.test_write PAT scope. These facts extend beyond the annotations with concrete behavioral and auth detail. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One dense paragraph with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by necessary specifics; every sentence earns its place with suite-type rules, parent placement, and auth scope. It could be mildly improved by bulleting the three suite types, but it is far from bloated and reads efficiently.

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 its 7 parameters (all schema-documented), absence of an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is nearly complete: it covers all suite types, their required fields, parent placement guidance, and PAT scope. It omits explicit return-value expectations, but with no output schema and schema covering params, that is an acceptable minor gap.

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%, so a baseline 3 applies; the description earns a 4 by articulating cross-parameter dependencies (suiteType ↔ requirementId/queryString) and by explaining parentSuiteId semantics ('Use the plan's rootSuiteId... attach directly under root'), which complements the schema's per-parameter text. The schema already echoes some dependency info in the suiteType description, but the description consolidates it into an actionable rule.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new suite inside a test plan') and enumerates the three suite types with their distinguishing characteristics, which separates it cleanly from the sibling ado_testsuites_list (which reads) and ado_testcases_add_to_suite (which adds cases rather than suites). An agent can infer exactly what the tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context by conditioning each suiteType on its required companion parameter (requirementId, queryString) and by cross-referencing ado_testplans_create/get for obtaining rootSuiteId. It does not explicitly name sibling exclusions (e.g., 'use ado_testcases_add_to_suite for existing cases'), but the type-specific requirements effectively route the agent through the correct setup path.

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