Create or update test plan

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does add cost/latency context ('one API call, about 0.5s, growing with the number of cases'), which is genuinely useful beyond annotations. However, it never says what happens to the existing case list on update (replace vs. append) or what is returned — a meaningful gap for an upsert tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core create/update rule, followed by the related-tool pointer and cost note. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 5-parameter upsert with no output schema, the description covers the create/update duality, object meaning, sibling routing, and call cost. The remaining gap is the update-overwrite semantics for `cases` and any return value, which an upsert tool should ideally disclose.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the create-vs-update meaning of `id`. The description's mention of `id` semantics largely restates that schema text and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb pair (create/update) plus the resource, and defines the domain object plainly ('a named, reusable set of case IDs such as a smoke or regression pack'). It also names the sibling it hands off to (qase_regression_run), so the agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete routing rule: supply `id` to update, omit it to create, and points to qase_regression_run for turning a plan into a run. It does not state exclusions (e.g. when to prefer qase_plan_delete or a bulk case tool), but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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