Create a test case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only restates input capabilities (ordered steps, custom fields) and gives no information about permissions, return values, idempotency, or side effects. This is a mutation tool, and the description lacks behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes only essential information. No filler or redundancy.

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 has 7 parameters with nested objects and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the primary use case but omits what the tool returns, how to discover field IDs (e.g., via list_fields), and any required permissions or prerequisites beyond 'inside a module.' This is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a complex creation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by calling steps 'ordered' and explaining fields as a 'fieldId -> value map', which clarifies the structure and relationship of nested 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a test case inside a module.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_module or create_requirement by scoping creation to test cases within a module.

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 'inside a module' implies the prerequisite context of a module ID, and the capability to add steps/custom fields suggests appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as update_test_case or add_test_step, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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