Add a test step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior ('append' indicates adding to existing steps without overwriting) and the content of a step (action + expected result). However, it does not mention return values, error conditions, or side effects beyond the append action. For a simple mutation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 append operation, the description plus schema cover the essentials: what it does, the parameters, and the target. The absence of an output schema and annotation context is not a major gap given the simplicity. It could mention return value or failure modes, but the core context is complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description's mention of 'action + expected result' loosely maps to the 'description' and 'expected' parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Append a single test step (action + expected result) to an existing test case' with a specific verb ('append'), a specific resource ('test step'), and context ('existing test case'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_test_case or update_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 phrase 'to an existing test case' provides clear context for when to use this tool: you already have a test case and want to add a step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies the use case and distinguishes it from creating a test case entirely.

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