testmo_create_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key constraint (cases required when include_all is false), but it does not disclose side effects, return value, permissions, or any destructive potential. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the essential requirements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (12 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the most critical call information (required fields and conditional logic). However, it omits any explanation of return values or post-creation behavior, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that state_id comes from testmo_list_states (entity 'run') and reiterating the conditional dependence between include_all and cases, which is helpful 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new manual test run in a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like testmo_list_runs or testmo_update_run by specifying the creation action and the 'manual' test run type.

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 clear usage context by specifying required parameters and the source of state_id ('from testmo_list_states, entity 'run''). It also explains the conditional requirement for cases when include_all is false. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, so it does not reach a 5.

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