Manage Test Plan Content

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

Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by enumerating the three types of modifications (add, remove, update filter), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. The structure efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and capabilities.

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 (5 parameters, output schema present, annotations), the description covers the main operations. However, the 'or' in 'adding or removing... or updating' could be misinterpreted as mutually exclusive, whereas the schema allows combining operations. Minor ambiguity keeps it from being a 5.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description groups the parameters into operations but does not add new constraints or details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 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 'Modify the content (Test Cases) of an existing Test Plan' and lists specific operations: adding/removing Test Cases by ID or updating the AQL filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_test_plan which likely handles other attributes.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (modifying test plan content) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The specificity of operations provides implicit guidance, but explicit exclusion of other update tools would improve clarity.

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