Create test run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does state the mutation effect: creating a test run and selecting test cases by scope. However, it does not disclose return behavior, output format, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving notable gaps.

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 well-structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a minimal checklist of scope behaviors. Every line adds meaningful value and the central scope logic is 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 nine parameters and lack of annotations, the description plus schema make a basic invocation constructible. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits expected return values, prerequisites, and alternative-tool routing, which are important for full completeness.

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. The description adds explicit dependency mapping beyond the schema by clarifying that caseIds are required for scope=cases and moduleKeys plus an optional mode are required for scope=modules, which helps construct valid requests.

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 opens with 'Create a test run in a project', naming a specific action and resource, then clarifies the three scope modes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_test_case and clone_test_run.

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 scope bullet list gives useful guidance on when to use each scope option, such as caseIds for scope=cases and moduleKeys for scope=modules. However, it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer how this tool relates to clone_test_run or create_test_case.

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