Create test case

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

Disclosures several valuable behaviors beyond the annotations: category/priority names are resolved to ids, setting plan triggers TestPlan.add_case, tags are added one by one, and text is stored verbatim with no section parsing. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so this context is essential.

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?

Every sentence carries dense, non-redundant information. The description front-loads the core action and then adds behavioral details in logical order, with no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a 13-param create tool with no output schema, the description covers major behavioral nuances including defaults, name resolution, attachment, tags, and text format. Remaining params are left to the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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 covers all 13 params, but the description enriches key ones: product default, category/priority name-to-id resolution, plan attachment semantics, comma-separated tags being added individually, and Markdown text behavior. It goes beyond schema descriptions, though not every parameter is addressed.

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?

Description opens with 'TestCase.create in the product', clearly identifying the action (create) and resource (test case) while scoping to Kiwi. The verb and resource distinguish it from update, plan, and run tools in the sibling list.

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?

Provides clear context: defaults to KIWI_PROJECT, category/priority name resolution, and plan attachment behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as preferring kiwi_plan_add_case for existing cases.

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