create_test_runs

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds significant behavioral detail: id requirement, validation against enumerations/templates, atomic batch behavior, dry_run preview, and custom_fields validation limitations. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 paragraph but well-structured: a summary sentence followed by key behavioral points in a natural flow. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 description covers validation, error handling, atomicity, dry_run, prerequisites (referencing sibling tool list_test_runs), and limitations. With full schema coverage, output schema present, and clear annotations, the description is complete for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the 'id' parameter (must be provided, no auto-generation) and explains validation for type/status/template_id, which adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Create 1-50 test runs in one project in a single bulk request.' which is a specific verb-noun pair with clear scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings (e.g., create_work_items, create_document) by targeting 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?

The description provides implicit usage guidance by detailing validation rules and atomicity, and suggests re-querying list_test_runs before retrying on failure. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear for a specialized create tool.

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