upload_cucumber_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool ALWAYS creates a new test cycle and never appends, plus the exact return shape (API description of the cycle, or {uploaded: true} for an empty body). It does not mention auth/permission requirements, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 purpose followed by format requirements and behavior/return semantics. Nearly every clause earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by covering input format constraints, matching rules, the new-cycle behavior, and return values. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail (including the nuanced autoCreateTestCases caveat). The description adds the tag-to-test-case matching mechanism, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (publish Cucumber execution results from a local ZIP archive) and even names the endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling upload_automation_results by pinning the Cucumber format, but never names that sibling 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?

The description lays out hard prerequisites (archive must contain Cucumber json-formatter output; every scenario needs a @TestCaseKey tag), which strongly implies when this tool is applicable. However, it never states when to choose it over upload_automation_results or create_test_run, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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