write_test_run

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: creating a test plan run, auto-adding a 'Not run' test case run per case, and then setting results with optional comments. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true annotations.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then explains the effects. The parenthetical status list is slightly redundant with the schema, but it improves quick comprehension without bloating the definition.

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 definition is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool for the core workflow, and it exposes an important side effect. It leaves some gaps around repeated calls, overwriting behavior, and return values, and no output schema is present to fill those 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the main parameters: it clarifies the testPlan relationship, the result statuses, and the optional comment. It does not explain the optional name parameter or the testCase identifier format, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 names a specific action and resource: recording a test run of a test plan and setting test case results. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like write_test_cases by explaining the two-step behavior.

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 opening phrase implies the intended use case: record a test run and its results. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools like write_test_cases or state prerequisites such as the test plan already existing.

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