add_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says 'Create a test run.' It does not state permissions required, what the call returns (e.g., a run object or ID), whether include_all defaults to true, or how the create operation interacts with refs/case_ids. The mutation implication is present but nothing beyond it.

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 maximally short and verb-fronted with no filler words, but for a tool with 9 parameters it is borderline under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It is not as sparse as a pure tautology, but it does not add informational value beyond the bare purpose statement.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. The agent is left without knowledge of return values, default behaviors (e.g., include_all), conditional parameter interactions, or error conditions. The schema documents the parameters well, but the description adds no operational context around the create action.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, refs, case_ids, suite_id, project_id, description, include_all, milestone_id, assignedto_id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; it neither helps nor hurts.

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 'Create a test run' gives a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('test run'), and the verb distinguishes it from sibling run operations like get_run, update_run, close_run, and delete_run. It is clear but minimal — 'test run' is domain jargon that is not elaborated, so it stops short of a top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when creating a run is appropriate, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like update_run or close_run. The verb 'create' only weakly implies the use case.

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