recreate_test_run_with_items

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true; the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: DELETE runs only after a successful POST, the source survives otherwise and never on failure, issueLinks is rejected locally, removeTestCaseKeys is a silent filter, addItems does not deduplicate, removing all items is allowed, and copied scriptResults are sanitized. This is far beyond what the annotation provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and justified in length by 15 parameters and numerous gotchas, so most sentences earn their place. It is dense single-paragraph prose that would read better with light structuring, and the 'source run survives / never deleted on failure' point is restated near the end after being stated earlier.

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 15-param mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is complete: it documents the return shape ({key, originalKey, itemCount, copiedResults, deletedOriginal} plus copyResultsNote), the semantics of copiedResults, and every destructive/failure edge case an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: unspecified header fields inherit from the source run (with JSON null counting as absent), testPlanKey is not reported by GET /testrun so the new run starts plan-less, removeTestCaseKeys filters source items only, and addItems entries are appended without dedup. These interactions and edge cases go past the per-field schema text.

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+resource ('Recreate a test run (cycle) under a NEW key') with precise scope (changed item list, name, folder) and grounds it in the actual endpoints used. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings update_test_run / add_test_cases_to_run / remove_test_cases_from_run and explains the immutability constraint that forces this tool to exist.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: the API v1 immutability limitation, the two escape hatches (this public tool with a new key vs the internal-API tools on the same key), and the ZEPHYR_ALLOW_INTERNAL_API=true prerequisite for the latter. An agent can pick the right tool without inference.

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