create_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral details: it creates a case, uses project-config IDs for status/priority, and defers saving steps/requirements until after creation. It does not mention permissions or failure behavior, but the main side effects are disclosed.

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 concise sentences organize required/optional parameters and important behavioral notes without redundancy. Easy to scan.

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 10-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it: required/optional fields, folder alternative is in schema, and special handling of config IDs/steps/requirements is called out. It does not explicitly mention return value or how to obtain folder/project IDs, but sibling tools cover discovery.

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 descriptions already cover all 10 parameters; the tool description adds useful context about config-derived status/priority IDs and post-create saving. However, it slightly conflicts with the schema by listing folderId as required when the schema marks it optional.

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?

States clearly that it creates an AIO test case, distinguishing it from get/search/update operations. The required/optional parameter summary and project config note further clarify scope.

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?

Provides when-to-use signal by naming creation and listing required vs optional parameters, plus notes about status/priority IDs and deferred saving of steps/requirements. It does not explicitly contrast with update_case, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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