Add run property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether existing properties are overwritten), permissions required, or error conditions. This is a significant gap 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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences. The first sentence ('TestRun.add_property') provides a domain anchor, and the second clearly states the action. 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?

The tool is simple with 3 fully described parameters, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, duplicate handling, or success/failure indication, leaving some context gaps. However, given the trivial nature of the operation, this is minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (name, value, run_id). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond confirming that name and value form a property pair. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Adds a name/value property') on a specific resource ('the test run'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kiwi_run_add_tag (adds a tag) or kiwi_case_add_property (adds to a case) by clearly scoping to 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kiwi_case_add_property or kiwi_execution_add_property. The tool name implies context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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