link_autotest_to_case

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

Annotations already provide idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only metadata. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the autotest may not exist at link time, and the link is fully established later when the test runs. This is genuinely useful supplementary behavioral information.

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 short, well-organized sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second sentence highlights the most important non-obvious constraint about pre-linking.

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 two-parameter operation, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavior, and an important edge case. The annotations carry the safety/idempotency details, so nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters and has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-level meaning by clarifying that the autotest is matched by title, not by ID, and that pre-linking via testTitle is allowed even if the test does not yet exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource pair: links an automated test by title to a manual test case for coverage tracking. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling linking tools like link_launches_to_release.

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 use case is clear: coverage tracking between automated tests and manual cases, including pre-linking before the autotest exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the target is distinct enough that an agent should know when this tool fits.

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