postTestRuns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's non-idempotency note is partly redundant, but it adds the concrete consequence ('may create additional resources'). It goes meaningfully beyond annotations by explaining the dry_run preview contract — that the exact request is returned as plain text, and as structured content when an output schema is declared.

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: what it does, then effect, then idempotency caveat, then the dry_run tip, then an example. Every element earns its place, though the 'Effect: creates a new resource' sentence slightly restates the opening and could be merged.

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 3-param mutation with nested bodies, the description covers the mutation semantics, idempotency, a safe validation path, and a concrete payload example; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The only gap is the absence of guidance on permissions or what the created resource looks like in the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value for the deeply nested requestBody by giving a concrete JSON example showing the 'data' array, the 'testruns' type discriminator, and attributes placement — the one thing the schema's structural listing does not convey. It does not explain dry_run's redaction behavior, but the schema already does that.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Creates a list of Test Runs') and immediately clarifies the effect ('creates a new resource'), which is unambiguous against siblings like getTestRuns, patchTestRuns and deleteTestRuns. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for updates or single-run creation, so it doesn't reach full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a useful operational rule (repeat calls may create duplicates, so use dry_run to validate first) and clarifies idempotency expectations. However, it never states when to prefer this over patchTestRuns for modification, or over postTestRecords/postTestRunTestParameters for related sub-resources — the agent must infer create-vs-update from the verb.

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