add_test_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects, validation, prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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, straightforward sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain return behavior, error cases, or how this tool fits into the larger workflow alongside the listed siblings.

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 description adds no parameter-level information. With 60% schema coverage, the schema covers some parameters (tags, steps, title, feature, project, expected) but leaves others (type, priority, description, preconditions) less documented. The tool description does not compensate.

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 'add' and names the resource 'test case' with scope 'to a project'. The words 'Manually' and 'custom' distinguish it from sibling generate_test_cases, which implies automated generation.

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 phrase 'Manually add a single custom test case' gives clear context for when to use this tool (for manual, singular additions). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with sibling generate_test_cases is implied.

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