set_test_script

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

The description discloses destructive actions (deleting steps, irreversible format switch) and API-specific constraints (rejecting BDD headers). This adds significant value beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 a single dense paragraph but is well-organized. Minor improvement could be bullet points for better readability, but it remains concise and front-loaded.

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 (multiple formats, destructive, conditional params), the description covers essential aspects including return value. Lacks error-handling details but sufficient for selection.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds meaning by clarifying usage (e.g., 'pass text for PLAIN_TEXT/BDD', steps behavior for STEP_BY_STEP).

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 replaces a test case's entire script or changes its format, specifying the HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like add_test_steps by focusing on full replacement.

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 explicit warnings about destructive behavior and explains when to use each format. It could explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for incremental additions), but the context is still clear.

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