testmo_record_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Record a result' without stating whether this is a mutating operation, whether it overwrites existing results, what permissions are needed, or what the return value is. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an operation that writes data.

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 exactly two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second sentence efficiently clarifies two critical parameter references. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It covers the operation and key parameter lookup paths, but it omits behavioral side effects, return value, and any mention of the bulk sibling for larger batches. For a mutation tool with this complexity, the gaps are noticeable but not fatal, making it minimally adequate.

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 describes all five parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that run_test_id is the per-run test id shown as test_id in testmo_list_results and that status_id should come from testmo_list_statuses, which goes beyond the schema's terse one-line descriptions and reduces lookup errors.

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 verb ('Record') and the resource ('a result for one test in a run'). The phrase 'one test' explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool testmo_record_results_bulk, and the mention of run_test_id clarifies the exact scope of the operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context by specifying that this tool records a single test result and directs users to testmo_list_statuses for valid status IDs, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like the bulk-record sibling or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still gives useful context.

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