qase_result_record

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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals important behavior: the 200-item ceiling is enforced before anything is written, the call is a single API request, and the status field accepts only labels, not numeric IDs. This gives the agent critical execution expectations.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose, then moves to batching and alternatives. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds useful guidance; the cost sentence is slightly extra but provides useful operational context.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what results are, where they live, batch size limits, failure behavior for oversized lists, the alternative for creating a run, and status constraints. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly without additional tool discovery.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that status must be a label rather than a numeric ID, and by explaining the relationships between run_id, results, and the run concept. It does not deeply elaborate on code or run_id, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Record up to 200 results into an existing run.' It explains the core concept of a result versus a case, which clearly separates this tool from case-oriented tools like qase_case_upsert and from run creation via qase_ci_report.

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?

It gives an explicit batching rule ('Pass several results in one call rather than calling once per test') and explicitly names qase_ci_report as the alternative when the run does not exist yet and the job is finished CI. This is strong when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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