qase_regression_run

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutating) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it creates the run and adds cases, but does not elaborate on side effects, retry behavior, or how it handles conflicting parameters. Annotations cover the key behavioral traits; description adds marginal context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 8 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the selection logic and workflow. However, it could mention that only one selection method should be used at a time. Still, for a complex tool with good schema support, it is sufficiently complete.

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 63%, and the description adds value by explaining how parameters like suite_ids, include_cases, and plan_id interact for case selection, which is not fully captured in individual schema descriptions. This helps the agent understand that only one selection method should be used.

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 tool's purpose: setting up a regression test run in one call, with specific case selection methods (suite IDs, explicit case IDs, plan ID). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the one-call regression workflow and efficiency over the multi-step alternative.

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?

Implicitly suggests usage for regression runs and replacing multi-step workflows, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparison to alternatives like qase_run_upsert. Still, the description provides clear context for appropriate use.

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