add_test_plan_item

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

Annotations already label the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool resolves test cases by ID or name and optionally assigns assignees by email or name, which is useful but not extensive.

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 concise sentences effectively communicate the primary action and notable options without redundancy.

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 description covers the main action and optional assignment but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., test case and plan must exist) or default behavior when assignee is omitted. With an output schema present, return values are not required but missing context limits completeness.

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 descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description adds that testCase can be an ID or name, and assignee can be email or name, significantly enhancing understanding beyond the 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 explicitly states it adds a test case to a test plan, with resolution by ID or name, and optional assignment. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_test_plan_item.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (adding a test case to a plan) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It includes resolution and assignment options.

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