create_test_case

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions creation and return value, omitting side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. Minimal transparency.

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 sentences with no fluff. Purpose, return value, and key parameter hint are front-loaded. Every sentence is meaningful.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, description could be more complete. It explains integer-ID fields and return value, but leaves out customFields, folderId, and other parameter semantics. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverate is 100%, but description adds value by summarizing that priority, status, labels, components use integer IDs and referencing field_reference.json for valid values. This helps agents beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states it creates a test case in QMetry and returns the created object with id and key. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clone_test_cases or update_test_case.

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 guidance that integer IDs come from field_reference.json, but no advice on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., cloning or importing). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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