test_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors beyond the schema: validation against schemaVersion/steps/actions, and failure on name collision unless overwrite is true. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or return values, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core verb ('creates') is front-loaded, followed by input form, validation, and conflict behavior. 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 simple 3-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely complete: it covers input format, validation, and overwrite handling. Minor gaps remain around the optional name parameter's behavior and the return value, but complexity is low and schema coverage is complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema. It clarifies that content may be provided as a JSON string or object and must conform to a schema containing schemaVersion, steps, and actions, and it explains overwrite's conflict semantics, which the schema only hints at.

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 opens with 'Creates a new test,' which is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_list, test_update, test_delete, test_rename, and test_duplicate. It also states the main input behavior and validation scope, leaving no doubt about the tool's intended role.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: creating a new test, accepting content as a JSON string or object, validating a schema, and handling name conflicts with overwrite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it is not a 5, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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