Upload Test Results

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

Annotations indicate the tool modifies data (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Upload', such as whether results are appended or replaced, or any error conditions. The schema mentions 'append', but that is not in the description.

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?

The description is a single sentence with 8 words, very concise but lacking important context. It is front-loaded with the verb, but could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description fails to mention key constraints (e.g., required fields on results objects, maximum size) which are only in the schema. The description is too minimal for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the verb 'Upload' and the resource 'external test results' to a target 'existing launch', distinguishing it from siblings like 'submit_manual_test_results' which imply manual entry.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes the basic action.

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