Complete test run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: completing does not seal the run; the API still accepts later results and changes counts. This is a significant behavioral nuance beyond the annotations. The cost estimate also adds transparency. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, consequence, behavioral caveat, alternative, and cost. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is essential context. Nothing is redundant or tangential.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, when to call it, the non-locking behavior, the alternative tool, and cost. An agent has everything necessary to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (code and id), so the schema already fully documents them. The description does not add any parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and the description adds no extra meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a test run'), and states the precise effect: 'so it reports as finished rather than in progress.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling qase_ci_report by noting that tool does this as its final step, so an agent can distinguish when to use each.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it once the results are in' and explains the consequence of not doing so (skewed dashboards). It also explicitly names the alternative (qase_ci_report) and the condition under which this tool is not needed, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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