ado_create_test_run

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

Annotations are empty, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states creation without mentioning side effects, permissions, or idempotency. Important traits like whether a run is automatically started or if it modifies existing data are omitted.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 create operation with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits return value format, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., required permissions or existing plan). This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'planId' and 'pointIds' by mentioning 'for a plan (optionally over specific test points)', but does not enhance understanding of other parameters like 'automated' or 'project' beyond what schema provides.

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 action (create), the resource (test run), and the scope (for a plan, optionally over specific test points). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ado_get_test_run' and 'ado_list_test_plans'.

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 implies usage when creating a test run but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. With many test-related siblings, such as 'ado_get_test_results' or 'ado_list_test_runs', the tool lacks clear decision criteria.

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