Create test run

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds one behavioral nuance: build accepts a name looked up on the product/KIWI_PROJECT, and manager accepts a username. This provides useful context beyond the annotation, but it does not disclose return values, permissions, or prerequisites for the creation, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 only two sentences and avoids unnecessary repetition. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a key parameter nuance. It is concise, though the phrasing 'TestRun.create for a plan and build' is a bit terse and could be clearer for agents unfamiliar with the Kiwi domain.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description offers the crucial detail about build name resolution but does not address return values, whether the plan and build must already exist, or the role of notes/default_tester. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but for a create operation, the description could be more complete to ensure 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 input schema has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains each field. The description goes further by clarifying that 'build' accepts a name that is resolved against the product/KIWI_PROJECT and 'manager' accepts a username, adding helpful context about how parameter values are interpreted. This is valuable beyond the 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 title 'Create test run' and description 'TestRun.create for a plan and build' clearly indicate the tool creates a test run referencing a plan and build. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling create tools by mentioning the required inputs. However, 'TestRun.create' is somewhat terse and assumes familiarity with Kiwi's API.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies it is for creating a test run, but the description does not mention when to prefer it over update_run or other create tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool suggestions. Usage is only inferred from the tool's name.

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