Build regression run

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool costs two API calls behind one tool call, roughly 1s latency growing with resolved case count, and that it opens a run but does not close one. These are concrete side effects and operational traits not inferable from readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Four sentences with a clear flow: capability, use case, sibling alternatives, cost/latency. No filler or repetition of schema fields; every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with a rich description, annotations, and output schema, this is nearly complete. The only gap is that the 'or' among source types is not made an explicit exactly-one-of rule, and the schema does not enforce it, so an agent could call with none or several sources.

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 value by framing plan_id, suite_ids, and include_cases as alternative 'sources' and explaining that the tool resolves cases itself, which is meaning beyond individual property descriptions. It does not detail per-parameter syntax, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 and resource: 'Build and start a test run from a suite, a test plan, or an explicit list of case IDs.' It also names sibling tools (qase_run_upsert, qase_ci_report) and clarifies what this tool is not ('it does not close one'), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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 ('launch a regression cycle without first querying for cases') and when-not-to-use routes: hand-assembled runs go to qase_run_upsert and finished pipelines to qase_ci_report. This is direct alternative selection, not just implied context.

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