create_test_run_from_autotests

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, open-world), and the description usefully adds that the run is created pre-populated with one result row per autotest x configuration. It does not say what happens with unknown autoTestExternalIds, whether stale runs accumulate, or any permission requirements, so the added behavioral context is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is created and then the follow-up action. No filler or restated title.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers the core workflow but leaves most parameters and several behavioral questions (ID resolution, failure modes) unexplained. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently in edge cases.

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 only 13% of 8 parameters (only projectId has a description), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies the meaning of autoTestExternalIds and configurationIds through "one result per autotest x configuration" and mentions the external ID key, but name, tags, description, projectName, and launchSource are left entirely undefined anywhere.

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 and resource ("Create a test run") and immediately scopes it apart from plan-bound runs with "(not bound to a test plan)" and "one result per autotest x configuration". This lets an agent distinguish it from create_test_run and the test_points/work_items variants without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the follow-up step to submit_test_run_results and specifies the key to use (autoTestExternalId), which is concrete when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over create_test_run_from_test_points or plain create_test_run, so the exclusion side is only implied.

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