kiwi_add_case_to_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect—creating TestExecution rows—but does not mention duplicate behavior, required run/case existence, permissions, or what happens if the case already belongs to the run.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core action and the key behavioral effect with no filler. The information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the primary effect but lacks edge-case context such as idempotency, error conditions, and whether the run must have a particular status. No output schema or annotations compensate for these 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?

The schema provides only names and integer types, and the description does not explicitly define run_id and case_id. However, the phrase 'Add a test case to a run' makes the mapping to case_id and run_id reasonably clear. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('test case to a run'), and explicitly states the underlying effect ('creates the TestExecution rows'). This distinguishes it from siblings like kiwi_remove_case_from_run and kiwi_add_case_to_plan by naming the actual artifact being created.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose: use this when adding a test case to a run. However, there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, such as when to use kiwi_add_case_to_plan or kiwi_remove_case_from_run instead.

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