create_test_run_from_work_items

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the parent plan transitions to InProgress, results are pre-created, the run auto-completes when all results are submitted, and manual work items are rejected. Annotations already cover mutability and open-world scope, so this is strong added context, though failure behavior for partially valid work-item lists is unstated.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, followed by the acceptance constraint and lifecycle. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin parameter documentation, the description covers the critical preconditions and the downstream lifecycle well. It stops short of describing the return value (e.g., the new run id), which an agent would need since no output schema exists.

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 11% (only projectId documented), so the description carries most of the burden. It clarifies workItemIds (automated only) and implies configurationIds form a cross product, but name, tags, description, launchSource, projectName, and testPlanId remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (Create), resource (a test run inside a test plan), and the exact input dimensions (work items x configurations). The name-plus-description combination separates it from create_test_run_from_autotests and create_test_run_from_test_points by naming the input type explicitly.

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?

Gives a hard precondition (only AUTOMATED work items, linked to an autotest, with link_autotest_work_item named as the enabling step) and routes the follow-up action to submit_test_run_results. It does not explicitly contrast with the autotest/test-point variants, so an agent must infer which creation entry point to pick.

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