create_test_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the created plan returns internal id and key, but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, cascading effects, or error behavior. Adequate for a simple CRUD operation but could be richer.

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, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and to the point.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only purpose and a single parameter hint. Missing error conditions, project context, and parameter semantics for most fields.

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?

Input schema has 50% description coverage. Description only elaborates on folderId via list_folders hint. Does not explain parameters like description, priority, status, or custom fields, which are partially undocumented in schema. Insufficient compensation.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'create', resource 'test plan', and system 'QMetry'. Returns specific identifiers (internal id and key). Distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_test_case or create_test_cycle.

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 explicit guidance on using list_folders to find valid folderId values. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is implicit for a creation tool. Could be improved by mentioning prerequisites like project existence.

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