product_record_test_run

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description confirms it records a test result and adds useful field-level constraints, but it does not explain side effects, duplicate behavior, permissions, or what happens on failure.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by only the parameter details that need clarification. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, so return values and side-effect profile are partially handled. However, for a seven-parameter mutation tool, the description does not fully explain several parameters or provide usage guidance, leaving clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It valuably explains the execution_status_id enum mapping, test_case_id format, and short_message length, but leaves product_id, error_count, long_message, and test_name without added semantic guidance.

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 and resource: recording an automated test result in Spira. It is clear enough to distinguish this specialized test-run recording tool from general artifact search/get/create/update siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as product_create_artifact or product_update_artifact. The word 'automated' implies a context, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing instructions.

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