Add test runs to a suite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the semantic that 'each run represents one executable instance of a test case,' which clarifies the concept. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, irreversibility, or behavior with duplicate or invalid IDs, leaving notable gaps for a mutating operation.

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 two succinct sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a helpful pointer to a related tool. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, making it highly 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what a run is, and how to acquire the necessary IDs. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but these are not required by the schema and the tool's simplicity makes the description nearly complete. The lack of an output schema means return information could be helpful, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description itself adds little beyond the schema: it mentions test case IDs and test suite but not projectId. Since the schema already defines each parameter clearly, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Create test runs inside a test suite from a list of test case IDs.' This uses a specific verb with a resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qtest_list_test_runs (listing) and qtest_create_test_suite (creating a suite). It also explains the run concept as 'an executable instance of a test case.'

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to create excutable runs from test case IDs. It also provides a useful prerequisite instruction: 'Use qtest_list_test_cases to find test case IDs.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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