create_test_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return values but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., does it modify any existing data?), or whether the operation is reversible. A creation tool typically needs more safety-related context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key return values. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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 has 5 parameters and 20 siblings, the description covers the core action and folder options adequately. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project context) and does not mention how to handle errors or what the folderWarning means. Without an output schema, more detail on return values would improve 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. It clarifies the return fields and explains the folder parameters (folderId vs autoPickFolder), but does not provide additional constraints or examples. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Create a new test case in QTM4J', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also mentions return values, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_test_case_summary or add_test_case_steps.

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 provides some guidance on using folderId vs autoPickFolder with folderKeywords, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions compared to alternative tools, such as create_test_case_folder.

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