associate_functional_test

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the platform verifies associations and returns rejected mappings. It implies state mutation but doesn't detail reversibility or permissions. Effective for a partially transparent tool.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context, third describes outcome. Front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers inputs, verification behavior, and output (rejected mappings). Output schema exists, so returns are documented. Lacks mention of prerequisites like existence of test/objectives, but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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 75% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about verification and rejection but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It adds marginal value.

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 the verb ('associate') and resource ('functional test with functional objectives'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'suggest_functional_test_mappings' by explicitly mentioning using it after or for hand-mapping.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('after suggest_functional_test_mappings, or to hand-map') and what happens (verification, rejection). It lacks explicit when-not conditions, but provides sufficient usage context.

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