Create test plan

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, so the description carries some burden. It adds the product default (KIWI_PROJECT) and mentions the type, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, return values, or behavior on success/failure, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentence of 12 words, immediately front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values or expected outcomes; it does not. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the plan type must exist) and any post-creation behavior. However, it is a relatively simple create operation, and the parameter schema covers field details, making it minimally adequate but not complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the product default and type context but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 (TestPlan.create) and the resource (TestPlan), and differentiates from sibling tools like kiwi_create_run or kiwi_create_plan_type by specifying the object being created. It also adds context about the product and type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely restates the purpose without mentioning when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. The name and title imply usage, but the description itself lacks contextual direction.

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