create_test_plan

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: IT discloses the HTTP method (POST), return key format, the inability to build a UI URL, and critical constraints (folder must pre-exist, status case-sensitive, owner format). No contradictions 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?

The description is concise: one sentence for the main action plus a structured list of constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded. No redundant phrases.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers return values, prerequisites, and parameter nuances. It lacks explicit error handling or response details, but it is largely complete for a creation tool.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the return format, folder creation requirement, status defaults, and owner resolution. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a Zephyr Scale test plan (POST /testplan).' It specifies the action, resource, and API method, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_case and create_test_run. The return value format { key } is also mentioned.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool and includes prerequisites (folder must exist, owner resolution via find_jira_user). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to alternatives, but the constraints and context are sufficient.

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