create_test_case

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no safety info. It does disclose default values for type, priority, and status, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: first states purpose, second covers requirements and defaults. No filler words, every sentence adds value.

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 8 parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers creation, attachment, requirements, and defaults. It lacks mention of error handling or permissions, but is sufficient for basic usage guidance.

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 has 100% coverage, but description reinforces defaults and clarifies that project and suite are required references. This adds value over the schema's vague 'string that will be trimmed' for project and suite.

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 'Create a test case attached to a suite', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like update_test_case or create_test_suite by specifying the attachment relationship.

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 states required parameters (project and suite), implying prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like create_test_suite or when not to use it, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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