run_test_plan

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

Annotations do not contradict the description. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool creates a run and results, returns the run ID and count, and accepts optional parameters. This is useful for an agent to understand side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds key details about return value and optional parameters.

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 (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's action, outcome, optional parameters, and return value sufficiently for a tool with 4 parameters (2 required).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of optional parameters ('Optionally name the run and set a due date'), making it clear how to use runName and dueDate.

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's action (execute a test plan), the outcome (creates a test run and one test result per plan item), and the return value (run ID and count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_test_run and create_test_result by describing a higher-level operation.

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 implies when to use this tool (to execute a test plan with optional naming and due date) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like creating run and results individually.

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