create_test_result

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

Annotations already indicate a create operation. Description adds context about test case resolution and default status, but does not mention idempotency, side effects, or behavior if a result already exists for the same test case.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words, every part adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be enhanced by mentioning optional parameters like name and assignee, but is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description adds meaning to testCase (resolves by ID or name) and status (defaults to 'untested'), exceeding baseline. Other parameters like name and assignee are not explained 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 clearly states the tool creates a test result in a run, with specific details about resolving test cases and default status. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_test_run or create_test_plan, but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. The description suggests use when needing to record a test result, but omits when alternatives like update_test_result or delete_test_result are more appropriate.

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