create_test_case_minimal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the inclusion of custom fields but lacks details on mutation effects, authentication needs, error handling, or behavior on duplicates. The word 'minimal' hints at a simplified version but is not elaborated.

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 15-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, for an 11-parameter tool, it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail. A slightly longer description would improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, multiple location options), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use location parameters or the format of the steps array. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but overall the description is insufficient for an 11-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'steps', 'automated', 'pre_conditions', and 'priority', but ignores other parameters like app_name, title, section_id/section_name, suite_id/suite_name, and create_or_get. These are critical for correct usage and are left undefined.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Tuskr test-case'. It lists key components like steps and custom fields (automated, pre_conditions, priority). The tool name 'create_test_case_minimal' distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_section and create_test_suite.

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 implies usage for creating a test case with steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., searching or updating test cases). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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