kiwi_remove_case_from_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Unlink' indicates a state change but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the case is not currently linked, whether the test case or plan is modified beyond the relationship, or what the expected response is.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action clearly, though it is so brief that some useful behavioral detail is omitted.

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 mutation with no nested objects or output schema, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer what to call and what parameters to provide. However, it leaves behavioral details like error cases and side effects unstated, which is a noticeable gap given there are no annotations to fill it.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for both parameters. The description helps only by implying that case_id refers to the test case and plan_id refers to the test plan, but it adds no further meaning about relationship requirements, value ranges, or behavioral effects of the parameters.

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 action, 'unlink', and identifies the exact object and container: a test case and a test plan. This makes the core purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from related operations like adding a case to a plan or unlinking from a run, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a test case should no longer be associated with a test plan. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from similar operations like removing a case from a run.

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