link_automated_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the side effect of setting automationStatus to Automated, required permissions, plan feature enforcement, the 50-link limit, and duplicate-link rejection. It also warns that fullTitle must not be hand-built, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisites, parameter sourcing, error cases, side effect, and bulk alternative are all covered in a few focused sentences. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains how to get inputs, what will fail, what side effects occur, and when to use an alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that pwTestId and fullTitle must come from list_automated_tests, that fullTitle is a server join key and never hand-built, and that list_testcase's pw_test_id matches pwTestId. This is genuinely useful additional parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('link') with a clear resource ('one automated (Playwright) test to one manual test case') and the purpose ('so automation results surface on the case'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling bulk_link_automated_tests and unlink_automated_test.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool, including prerequisites (write permission, automation_linking plan), how to obtain required identifiers from list_automated_tests/list_testcase, and when to prefer bulk_link_automated_tests. It also documents error conditions such as 400 and 403, leaving little to inference.

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