Create Test Plan

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

Annotations are neutral (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints). The description adds that it creates a new plan and defines content, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate plan handling, required permissions). No contradiction with 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?

Six sentences well-structured with a bulleted list. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, content definition methods, and parameter usage. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between test_case_ids and aql_filter (both can be used together), which is not fully captured in 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 clearly states the tool creates a new Test Plan in Allure TestOps, defines what a Test Plan is, and explains three methods to define its content (IDs, AQL, or both). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_test_plan_content which likely modifies existing plans.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to use parameters (test_case_ids vs aql_filter vs both). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like manage_test_plan_content for modifying existing plans.

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