addPlanEntry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Adds' without mentioning return values, error conditions, permissions, or side effects. The agent has no insight into what happens beyond the action.

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?

Two sentences (one per language) that are very concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. The tool purpose is conveyed efficiently.

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?

Despite a complex schema with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain what a test plan entry is, what required parameters (planId, suiteId) represent, or the expected outcome. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not improve or clarify parameter semantics beyond schema.

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 'Adds a new test plan entry to an existing test plan', specifying the verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes from siblings like addPlan (adds a plan) and addRunToPlanEntry (adds a run to an entry).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing plan) or when not to use it. With siblings like addRunToPlanEntry, confusion is possible.

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