set_test_script

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details exactly what is destroyed: steps are irreversibly deleted when switching formats, and omitted steps in replacements are also deleted. It adds context about irreversibility and return value {key, url}.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action, then covers warnings, parameter mapping, and return value. All sentences add value, but it could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return {key, url}. It covers the main behavior but does not discuss error handling or permissions, which is acceptable for this 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: explains how text works for PLAIN_TEXT/BDD (full Gherkin document), how steps works for STEP_BY_STEP with deletion behavior, and clarifies that steps with IDs are updated, new steps created, and missing steps deleted. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Replace a test case's ENTIRE script or change its format') and identifies the resource (test case script). It distinguishes from siblings like add_test_steps (which adds steps, not replaces) and update_test_case (which updates other fields).

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 text vs steps based on format, and warns about destructive nature. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like add_test_steps or update_test_case.

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