create_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that `project`/`version` accept keys/names or ids with preference for ids to skip lookups, and explains special values like `-1` for `cycle_id` and `version`. It also mentions the return format (a map keyed by execution id). However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or potential errors, leaving some gaps.

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 concise with about 5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter details with special values, optional fields, and return type. 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and output format well. It lacks usage guidelines and error scenarios, but for a creation tool it is sufficiently complete to enable correct invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The tool's description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, acceptable types (key/id, name/id), special values (`-1`), and optionality (`folder_id`, `assignee`). This gives the agent rich context beyond raw schema types.

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 tool's purpose: 'Schedule a test (create an execution) in a cycle.' This provides a specific verb (Schedule) and resource (execution). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like `add_tests_to_cycle_from_cycle` which may also create executions, so it misses the highest clarity mark.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `add_tests_to_cycle_from_list` or `update_execution`. The description focuses solely on how to use parameters, omitting context for tool selection.

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