Complete test run

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

Goes well beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing the key semantic that completion is a reporting state, not a lock, and that later results still land and change counts. It also gives an operational cost estimate (one API call, ~0.4s), which annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the non-obvious state semantics, then the alternative and cost. No filler or repetition.

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 with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it does, that it is non-destructive and idempotent in effect, how it interacts with later writes, and when the sibling qase_ci_report already covers it.

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% (id and code are both documented with format, pattern and bounds), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the two parameters, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a test run complete') plus the observable outcome ('reports as finished'), which cleanly separates it from qase_run_delete and qase_run_upsert among the siblings.

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?

Names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: 'If all results are in hand at once, qase_ci_report does this as its final step,' implying this tool is for the incremental/standalone case. No explicit statement of when not to call it, but the routing is clear.

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