Update test run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral insight: setting stop_date closes the run. However, it does not mention whether the update is partial or full, any permissions needed, or what the response contains. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the mutation itself.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the operation name 'TestRun.update' and followed by a compact list of fields and a key hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 an update tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a good high-level overview but omits details about return values, partial-update behavior, or prerequisites. The stop_date hint adds context, but the tool remains somewhat underspecified for an AI agent to fully anticipate the result of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats field names already documented in the schema and explicitly mentions the stop_date effect that the schema already describes ('Set this to close the run'). No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 'TestRun.update' clearly identifies the tool as an update operation on a test run, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'kiwi_create_run' (create) and 'kiwi_update_execution' (update execution). The list of fields (summary, notes, build, manager, dates) further clarifies the scope.

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 provides clear context: it updates a test run. It also gives a specific usage tip ('set stop_date to close the run'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using kiwi_update_execution for execution-level updates. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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