kiwi_add_case_to_plan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the case is already linked, any permission requirements, or the response/return behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core function with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple two-integer operation, the description conveys the essential action. But without annotations or an output schema, important context about side effects, idempotency, and error handling is missing, leaving the description minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The parameter names case_id and plan_id are self-explanatory and the description maps them to 'test case' and 'test plan'. However, no additional semantics or constraints are provided beyond the raw schema, and schema description coverage is 0%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Link') and resource ('existing test case' to 'test plan'), clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling kiwi_add_case_to_run by specifying 'test plan' rather than 'test run'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kiwi_add_case_to_run or kiwi_remove_case_from_plan. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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