Link test cases to a requirement

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It describes the logical effect ('marks the listed test cases as covering the requirement') but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, required permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information: the action and the ID guidance.

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 three simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, logical effect, and parameter sourcing. It could be more complete by describing expected outcomes or error conditions, but for this simple linking action, it covers the essentials.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that IDs are numeric and referencing qtest_list_test_cases as a source for testCaseIds. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 coverage links') and the resources involved ('requirement and one or more test cases'). It positions this as 'the primary traceability action', which distinguishes it from generic linking tools like qtest_link_artifacts, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 gives clear usage context by stating this is the primary traceability action and marks test cases as covering a requirement. It also instructs to use qtest_list_test_cases to find numeric IDs, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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