create_suite

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains parent parameter accepts ID or title and references default project for project_id. However, it does not disclose side effects, error handling, or idempotency, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

Concise with a clear structure: single-line purpose, a practical tip, required/optional breakdown, and three illustrative examples. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools like get_project_context, the description provides all necessary context: parameter roles, example payloads, and a helpful reference. Complete for its complexity level.

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. Description adds value by providing usage context for project_id (optional if default set), examples demonstrating title and parent as string or number, and a tip to resolve parent titles, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Create a new test suite in TestCollab' with specific verb and resource. Examples and parameter lists reinforce purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_suite, delete_suite, and move_suite.

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?

Includes a tip to call get_project_context first to resolve parent suite names. Lists required and optional parameters, with examples for root and child suites. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but context is sufficient for typical use.

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