testrail_close_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether closing is irreversible, what happens to the run's existing results, what permissions are required, or whether the run can be reopened.

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?

A single four-word phrase with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be genuinely helpful.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is missing key context: irreversibility, effect on results, and expected response. The parameter is documented by the schema, but the behavioral picture is not.

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% and the single run_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Close") and resource ("a test run"), so the operation is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like testrail_update_run or testrail_delete_run, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to close a run versus updating or deleting it, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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