start_test_run

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond that. It does not disclose what state the run must be in, what happens if the run is already started or completed, whether any side effects propagate to test points/results, or what the response contains. For a lifecycle mutation with rich annotations, the description is a bare restatement.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

No output schema and one simple string parameter keep structural demands low, but the description still leaves the id parameter, the pre-conditions of starting, and post-start behavior unspecified. Given the mutation involved, an agent must guess at failure modes before calling.

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 one parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no meaning at all. The description does not identify id as the test run identifier or state its expected format, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented across both schema and prose.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Start a test run"), which is clearly a state-transition operation an agent can identify. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling lifecycle tools such as complete_test_run, stop_test_run, or rerun_test_run_results, leaving the agent to infer which lifecycle action this is.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "Start" – an agent can guess this transitions a run from a created/not-started state to running. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the run must exist and not already be running), and no mention of alternatives like rerun_test_run_results.

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