Log a test result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses accepted status examples and optional fields but fails to mention side effects, return values, error behavior, or whether this creates a new log entry or overwrites an existing one. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant information. Every phrase contributes (statuses, optional fields, ISO 8601).

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 description covers the essential purpose and parameters, but given no output schema and no annotations, it is incomplete regarding return value and side effects. An agent would not know what to expect after submission (e.g., a log ID, success indicator, or errors).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving status examples and clarifying optionality of note/timestamps, but it does not elaborate on projectId or testRunId beyond their schema descriptions.

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 ('Record') and resource ('execution result (test log)') with a target ('against a test run'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like qtest_get_test_run or qtest_list_test_runs.

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 clearly conveys the context for use: logging a result against an existing test run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the tool name and siblings.

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