Add test run result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals multi-result targeting, accepted attachment formats, the 2 MB size limit, and the CASE key alias. It does not disclose whether existing results are overwritten, what effects occur on partial failures, or any permission/authentication requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by a single dense sentence of key constraints. Every element earns its place, including the file-format list, which directly affects call success.

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?

The schema already covers parameter names and the status enum, and the description adds key-sourcing and file constraints. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain when to use this tool versus the nearby update/bulk tools and what happens to pre-existing results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful detail: result keys originate from list_test_run_results, CASE-prefixed case keys are accepted, and file types plus the 2 MB per-file cap go beyond the schema's generic 'local file paths' description.

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 action ('Add a result to one or more test run results') and the payload contents (status, comment, time spent, attachments). It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_test_result or bulk_update_test_results.

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 gives useful invocation guidance by pointing to list_test_run_results as the source of result keys and noting that CASE-prefixed case keys are accepted. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over update_test_result, bulk_update_test_results, or update_test_result_steps.

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