add_plan_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add test runs to a test plan' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of results. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that's self-explanatory ('add_plan_entry'), though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place.

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 the complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'plan entry' is, how test runs are structured, what happens when adding runs, or what the tool returns. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured guidance, more context is needed.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'test runs' relate to the 'runs' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact.

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 'Add test runs to a test plan' clearly states the action (add) and target (test runs to a test plan), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_run_to_plan_entry' or 'add_run', leaving ambiguity about whether this creates new runs or adds existing ones to a plan. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 like 'add_run', 'add_run_to_plan_entry', and 'add_plan', there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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