write_test_cases

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description needn't restate that this is a write operation. It adds useful behavior: 'Each case is read back' and clarifies project inheritance. It does not explain the implications of destructiveHint, but there is no contradiction.

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 short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the action, the project inheritance rule, and the read-back behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 write tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested cases array, more context is needed: how to represent ordered steps, how testPlan is supplied, and what constraints apply. 'Each case is read back' gives only a vague hint of the response.

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, but it only mentions 'test plan,' 'cases,' and 'ordered steps.' It does not explain the testPlan ID format, how the steps array is structured, or the 1-100 item limit. Minimal semantic value beyond the property names.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create test cases with ordered steps under a test plan.' It also adds the inherited project detail, which distinguishes it from general write tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like write_test_run or write_create_card.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'under a test plan' implies context, but no when/when-not conditions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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