move_test_case

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), open-world, and not idempotent. The description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects on test case history, what happens if the target folder is invalid, or whether the test case ID must already exist. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral 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 short but somewhat repetitive: the first sentence and second sentence essentially restate the same action. The third sentence adds context about reorganization but is verbose and not front-loaded with critical details like the folder parameter.

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 moves a test case (a mutation), has no output schema, and the input schema has nested objects with 0% description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required destination folder parameter, behavioral implications of moving, or what the operation returns or affects.

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 0% for the two parameters. The description mentions 'unique identifier' for the test case but does not clarify the folder parameter, nor how to specify the destination folder. It fails to compensate for the undocumented nested parameters.

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 verb+resource: 'Move a test case to a folder.' It specifies relocating a test case within a project by its unique identifier. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like move_test_run or other test-case operations, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explains the purpose (reorganizing test cases) but offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. There is no indication of when moving is appropriate versus, for example, updating via put_test_case or managing folders directly.

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