Trigger a manual QA story run

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds value by clarifying that the operation is queued and returns immediately, that progress must be polled, and that the run ID is returned. This context aligns with annotations and provides actionable behavioral expectations.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences and a brief comparison to the console. Every sentence adds value: purpose, preconditions, immediate return, post-run actions, and real-world equivalent. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, immediate output, and follow-up actions. It does not detail error conditions or handling of non-enabled stories, but for a trigger tool this is sufficient.

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% with clear descriptions for 'projectId' and 'qaStoryId'. The description adds the constraint that the story must be enabled and approved, which is not in the schema, providing slight additional meaning. However, no format, validation, or relationship details are added beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Queue a manual run') and identifies the resource ('enabled + approved qa_story'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_qa_story_run' (reading runs) and 'approve_qa_story' (approving). The reference to the console 'Run now' provides intuitive alignment.

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 states the tool is for manual runs and implies the story must be enabled and approved. It advises polling for progress using 'qa_story_runs' or 'get_report_detail'. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or list alternatives (e.g., what to do if the story is not approved).

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