add_run_to_plan_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'add' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether this creates a new run or associates existing runs, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool that modifies data with 8 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar tools. The description provides only the most basic functional statement without the context needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how 'include_all' interacts with 'case_ids'), parameter constraints, or practical usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('add a test run') and target resource ('to an existing plan entry'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_run' or 'add_run_to_plan_entry' vs 'update_run_in_plan_entry', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular addition operation.

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. With many sibling tools like 'add_run', 'add_plan_entry', 'update_run_in_plan_entry', and 'delete_run_from_plan_entry', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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