Add test cases

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

The description clearly explains the additive behavior: cases are added to existing content rather than replacing it. It also discloses the interactive-problem verdict behavior. Annotations already cover read-only/destructive hints, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them.

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 carry all essential information with no filler. The most critical behavioral caveat (append vs. replace) is front-loaded, and the interactive case is handled in a single follow-up clause.

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 simple two-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the operation, the replacement alternative, and the interactive edge case.

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 the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the interactive expectedOutput rule, but it does not significantly extend parameter understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Append test cases to a draft in one call." It also explicitly distinguishes this from repovive_build_clear_testcases, which is the key sibling that could be confused with it.

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 gives clear usage guidance: use this to append, and use repovive_build_clear_testcases first if replacement is intended. It also includes an important conditional for interactive problems, telling the caller to omit expectedOutput.

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