Create a requirement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter hints but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, idempotency, error cases, or whether the created requirement is returned. This is a significant gap 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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action and then immediately provides the key input guidance, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a straightforward create operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the return value or behavior on success. It doesn't, and it also omits any mention of prerequisites beyond projectId/parentId. This leaves minor gaps, but the core usage is covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description's note about 'fieldId -> value' for custom fields is redundant with the schema's 'Custom field values keyed by numeric field id.' It adds no new meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 the action ('Create a requirement') and the target resource ('under a module'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qtest_update_requirement and qtest_list_requirements. The required parent context is specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use the tool: supply parentId for the containing module and optional custom fields. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names (e.g., update, list) implicitly differentiate usage. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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