add_results

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

With no annotations supplied, the description is the only behavioral cue; it discloses only that this is an append-style bulk create operation. It does not say whether existing results are replaced, how partial failures are handled, whether the run must be in a certain status, or what the response contains.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.

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 rich input schema covers parameter semantics, so the minimal description is not crippling for invocation. Still, without annotations or any behavioral notes (mutating effect, idempotency, return value), the definition leaves meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including status ID meanings and elapsed time format. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the word 'bulk,' so the schema earns the baseline score.

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 the action (bulk add), the object (results), and the target (a run), and 'bulk' separates it from the single-result sibling add_result. It could further name the distinction from add_results_for_cases, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Bulk' implies this is for adding multiple results at once rather than using add_result, and 'for a run' ties it to run-scoped result entry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over add_results_for_cases or mention any prerequisites such as the run existing.

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