create_test_suite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses creation of specific files and path constraints, but does not discuss error handling, overwrite behavior, or whether additional files may be created.

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 reasonably concise with front-loaded purpose, but uses bullet points unnecessarily; every sentence adds value, though could be tighter.

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?

Despite having an output schema (stated in context but not provided), the description does not mention return value or success/failure indicators. For a creation tool, output description is important for agent understanding.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: suite_path must be absolute and start with 'suite_', and wrapper has a default and is written as 'WRAPPERS' in suite.conf.

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 it creates a new Squish test suite with a standard directory structure, specifying the files created (suite.conf, shared/names.py). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_test_case.

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 context on prerequisites (directory must not exist) and default wrapper, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_test_case.

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