testmo_create_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: optional fields use defaults, custom fields must match the template or a 422 is returned, and batch size is 1-100. It could also mention the response format or idempotency, but it already adds substantial value beyond the tool name.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately follows with the most important usage constraints.

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 the core creation action, batch limits, optionality, and the custom-field gotcha. It does not explain return values or permission requirements, but there is no output schema and the input schema handles field-level details well.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that folder_id/template_id/state_id are optional with defaults and that template-specific custom fields must match the template or cause a 422. This helps the agent avoid common errors.

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 one or more test cases (1-100) in a project's repository,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like testmo_update_cases or testmo_list_cases.

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?

It provides clear context for use: creating new test cases, with a batch size limit and note that only 'name' is required while others use defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like testmo_update_cases.

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