testneo_swagger_impact_actions

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

Description reveals guarded nature (require write and confirmation) and snapshot promotion, but fails to mention return format, failure modes, or side effects of actions. With no annotations, more detail is needed.

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 front-load purpose and key information. No wasted words.

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?

Omits response format, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., existing project), and detailed behavior of each action. With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse.

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?

Only actions and confirm are hinted at in description; critical parameters project_id and idempotency_key are not described. Given 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 tool applies impact triage on web test cases with specific actions (mark_stale, archive, keep) and promotes a modified spec snapshot. It distinguishes itself from sibling testneo_swagger_impact_analysis by being an action-oriented tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions 'guarded: allow-write + confirm=true' as a safety feature but does not explain when it's appropriate to use or when to choose another tool.

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