Registrar evidência de teste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it does not execute tests and points to qa-lab-agent for that, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like modifying the linked ticket or requiring specific permissions, which a write operation typically needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the exclusion. No wasted words.

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 record tool, the description covers the essential: what it does, that it writes (implies), and that it doesn't run tests. It lacks details on side effects or return, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it's mostly complete. Still, it could mention prerequisites like having a ticket ID.

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 input schema describes 60% of parameters (suite, source, status), and the description repeats the status enum and mentions linking to a ticket, which gives context for ticket_id. However, it does not explain summary or ticket_id beyond the schema, and with 60% coverage it only partially compensates for undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb 'grava' (records) a test run (pass/fail/flaky/blocked) linked to a ticket, and explicitly differentiates from qa-lab-agent that executes tests. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qa_record_bug or qa_attach_evidence.

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 explicitly says 'Não executa testes — para rodar, use o MCP qa-lab-agent', which tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the alternative. It also implies usage when recording a test result for a ticket, providing clear context.

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