add_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new test case' implies a write operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., whether a case ID is returned). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation operation and front-loads the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a case ID), error handling, or system constraints. The high parameter count and lack of behavioral context make this description incomplete for effective tool use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage but doesn't provide additional context like typical values or relationships between 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 'Create a new test case' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('test case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other creation tools like 'add_section' or 'add_milestone' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'update_case', 'delete_case', 'get_cases'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from related operations.

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