addCase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: templateId=2 required for customStepsSeparated, alternative simple steps approach, and customFields usage. No misleading or hidden behaviors noted.

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?

Description is informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads purpose and required params, then details optional fields. Every sentence adds value, though some could be condensed. Still well-structured.

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 13 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and no output schema, description covers key interactions and constraints. It does not explain return value (e.g., created case object), which is a minor gap with absent output schema.

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% (baseline 3), but description adds significant value: explains relationship between templateId, customStepsSeparated, and customSteps/customExpected, provides example for customFields, and clarifies required vs optional. This exceeds baseline.

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 'Creates a new test case in TestRail' with specific verb and resource. It lists required and optional parameters, and distinguishes from sibling tools like addBdd, addPlan, etc., which target different entities.

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 when to use (create test case) and references getCaseTypes for valid typeId values. Notes templateId=2 requirement for customStepsSeparated. Could be more explicit about alternatives, but siblings are distinct operations.

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