Create or update suite

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new operational context (one API call, ~0.5s cost), which helps an agent budget calls. However, for a mutation tool it omits the important update semantics — whether omitted fields like description/preconditions are cleared or preserved on update — and says nothing about the return value. Useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the id branch, then the prerequisite pointer, then cost. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description should cover return behavior, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether the new/updated suite ID comes back, which matters for nesting child suites afterward. The update-merge semantics for optional fields (description, preconditions) are also unstated. Adequate but with real gaps for a 6-parameter upsert.

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 six parameters including id ('if provided, updates; if omitted, creates') and parent_id ('Parent suite ID for nesting'). The description restates those same semantics for id and parent_id rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create or update a test suite') and immediately clarifies the domain concept ('the folder cases live in'). The upsert split is spelled out: 'With `id` it updates, without it creates.' An agent can distinguish this from qase_suite_delete and qase_case_upsert 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?

Explicitly states the branch condition selecting update vs create, and gives a concrete prerequisite/alternative path: read the tree from qase_project_context rather than guessing parent IDs. This is the rare 'when to use it and how to prepare' guidance that prevents incorrect calls.

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