clone_test_run

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds useful context that the clone optionally carries over test cases and user assignments. However, it never explains the destructiveHint=true, permission requirements, or what happens to pre-existing data, so it adds only partial behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action verb and kept to three short sentences. The second sentence partially restates the first ('Clone' vs 'Create a copy'), a minor redundancy but not enough to hurt usability.

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 mutation tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers the clone concept but omits return behavior, error/precondition handling, and most body parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 description clarifies that the source is identified by its unique identifier (path.testRunId) and that copied test cases and user assignments are optional, which loosely maps to the copy_test_cases and copy_users flags. It does not clarify the remaining body fields (draft, repeat, priority, dates, milestone/environment ids), so it only partially compensates for the sparse 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 states a specific verb (clone/create a copy) and resource (test run) and identifies the identifier that drives it. It is clearly distinguishable from get/put/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from post_test_run.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the right choice whenever a copy of an existing run is wanted rather than creating one from scratch via post_test_run.

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