eval.createCase

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the agent-scope authorization requirement, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about persistence of the created case, side effects, or whether the write is idempotent.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the scope requirement trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical field list reads as schema restatement rather than added information.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. Two parameters receive no coverage and the return behavior is unaddressed, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it names name, input_prompt, expected_output and rubric and marks expected_output as optional. It adds no format meaning, and agent_id and description go entirely unmentioned.

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 and resource ('Create a new eval test case') and enumerates the core payload fields, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling skill.createTestCase, which is the main clarity risk here.

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 prerequisite 'Requires agent scope' is useful context for when the call is valid, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over skill.createTestCase, eval.run, or eval.listCases. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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