ado_create_test_suite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the suite types but does not disclose behavioral details such as required parameters for each type, side effects (e.g., modifying the plan), or authorization needs. The schema covers parameter descriptions, so the description adds moderate value.

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 a single sentence, succinct and front-loaded with the verb 'Create'. Every word is meaningful with no fluff.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain dependencies (e.g., that parentSuiteId must be the root suite), conditional parameters (queryString for query suites), or what the tool returns. The agent lacks context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's parenthetical 'static/requirement/query' merely repeats the enum values and does not add new semantic context beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Create a test suite'), the hierarchical location ('under a parent suite in a plan'), and the allowed suite types ('static/requirement/query'). No sibling tool creates test suites, so it uniquely identifies the tool's purpose.

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 context (requires an existing plan and parent suite) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide prerequisites. Since no alternative creation tool exists, it's adequate but not explicit.

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