Manage Test Plan Content

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

Annotations indicate a destructive operation (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds context on what modifications are allowed, though it could better highlight the irreversible nature of removals. 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the action with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and operations. It does not address return values, errors, or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for a modification tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description paraphrases the parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 the verb 'Modify' and the resource 'Test Plan content', listing specific operations (add/remove test cases, update AQL filter). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_plan or update_test_plan.

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 implies usage for modifying test plan content but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives for other types of test plan updates.

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