create_test_plan

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 only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or that the referenced project must already exist. This is insufficient 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 a single, waste-free sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no annotations, making it too terse to be fully 'appropriately sized' for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and sparse schema descriptions, the description carries the full burden for explaining how to invoke the tool. It covers only the basic purpose and omits prerequisites, return values, and error behaviors, so it is not complete enough for reliable use.

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 only 20%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'inside a project' hints at the testProjectName parameter, but it does not elaborate on required testPlanName or the optional notes, active, and public fields, leaving a significant gap.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('test plan'), and the context ('inside a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_test_suite or create_test_case. It also includes the underlying API method name for added specificity.

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 use when a new test plan needs to be created, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites such as the need for an existing project, nor alternatives like listing existing plans or adding test cases to a plan.

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