complete_test_run

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's added value is the state-machine precondition: only runs in InProgress or Stopped can transition to Completed. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It omits downstream effects such as whether pending results are finalized or further result submission is blocked, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentence with the resource first and the state transition front-loaded; the arrow notation compresses the precondition and outcome with zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter state-transition tool whose safety profile is fully described by annotations, this is nearly sufficient: the caller knows the resource, the required id, and the required current state. The main missing piece is what completing does to the run's contents and whether the change is reversible.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Test run UUID'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description implies the id must reference a run in a specific state, which adds a little semantics, but the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Complete) and resource (test run) and pins the exact state transition InProgress/Stopped -> Completed, which distinguishes it from siblings like start_test_run or stop_test_run without opening their schemas. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the transition itself 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?

The parenthetical preconditions (InProgress/Stopped) tell the agent when this call is valid, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no pointer to start_test_run/stop_test_run for the opposite transitions, and no note about what to do if the run is already completed.

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