postTestSteps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'creates', but fails to disclose whether it is destructive (replaces existing steps?), idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The agent cannot infer side effects or safety.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is not verbose, but could benefit from a bit more context without becoming lengthy.

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 complexity (3 required params, nested object schema, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the structure of requestBody, how steps are ordered, or what the response looks like.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a baseline score 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 'Creates a list of Test Steps' clearly states the verb (creates) and the resource (test steps), distinguishing it from siblings like getTestSteps or deleteTestSteps. However, it does not differentiate create from patchTestSteps (which modifies steps) or clarify whether it replaces or appends.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., postTestSteps vs patchTestSteps). It does not mention prerequisites like needing a project or work item, nor does it explain whether steps are appended or replaced.

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