create_test_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return values (planId and root node id) and hints at their usage, but does not mention side effects, persistence, or any prerequisites. It is adequate but not rich enough for full transparency.

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 zero redundancy. It front-loads the core action, then concisely provides the critical return information and usage hint. Every word 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 create operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return values and their practical use. It is complete for the immediate purpose, though it could mention potential side effects or idempotency, but that does not detract significantly.

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?

The schema describes the only parameter 'name' with an adequate human-readable description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra detail about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline 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 clearly states 'Create a new JMeter test plan' with a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates from siblings by noting that it returns planId and the root TestPlan node id, which is unique to this tool among the listed siblings.

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 on how to use the return value ('which you'll use as parentId for the first thread group'), implying it is the first step in building a plan. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_thread_group, but the usage context is evident and sufficient for a create-first tool.

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