Create a Qmetry test case

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action ('create') but provides no details on idempotency, side effects, or what happens on duplicate inputs. The lack of output schema and description of return values further reduces transparency.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is too terse. It fails to provide necessary information about the tool's behavior or context. Conciseness is positive, but it sacrifices completeness.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the purpose of creating a test case, required preconditions, error cases, or dependencies on other API calls. The schema helps with parameters, but high-level context is missing.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not summarize parameters or clarify relationships. The schema itself is well-documented, so the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance understanding.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema shows required fields (summary, projectId, folderId, steps) but the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to call other APIs for IDs), when-not to use it, or any alternative tools. This leaves the agent without context.

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