Remove case from plan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the operation unlinks rather than deletes, but omits side effects, permissions, idempotency, and error behavior. This is minimal disclosure.

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, but the opening 'TestPlan.remove_case.' simply repeats the tool name and adds little value. The main sentence is direct and free of extraneous detail, earning a high but not perfect score.

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 simple two-parameter removal operation, the description covers the core function and parameters. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or idempotency, which could matter for agent decision-making.

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?

The schema provides full coverage for both parameters (plan_id and case_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond mapping 'given plan' and 'test case' to the respective IDs.

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 with the verb 'Unlinks' and specifies the resource: a test case from the given plan. This distinguishes it from siblings like kiwi_plan_add_case and kiwi_plan_update_case_order, so the purpose is 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when a test case needs to be unlinked from a plan), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. This is clear context without formal when/when-not guidance.

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