add_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on success or error (e.g., partial updates), or if there are rate limits. It also doesn't clarify if 'add' means create new entries or update existing ones, leaving behavioral traits ambiguous. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative by clarifying the scope of 'add' (e.g., 'create' or 'append'), but as-is, it avoids redundancy and waste.

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 complexity of a bulk write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address key aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status, IDs of added results). For a tool that modifies data and has many similar siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage and avoid confusion.

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 100%, with clear documentation for 'run_id' and 'results' (including nested properties like test_id, status_id). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'test IDs' which aligns with the 'test_id' parameter but doesn't explain the relationship between test IDs and results or provide additional context like format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 'Add multiple test results by test IDs' clearly states the action (add) and resource (test results), but it's somewhat vague about what 'add' means in this context. It doesn't specify whether this creates new results, appends to existing ones, or updates them. Compared to sibling tools like 'add_result' (singular) and 'add_results_for_cases', it distinguishes itself by focusing on test IDs rather than cases, but the distinction isn't explicitly articulated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_result' (singular), 'add_results_for_cases', or 'add_result_for_case'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing run or test, or specify scenarios where bulk addition by test IDs is preferred over other methods. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose the correct tool among similar siblings.

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