Create or update test run

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and delivers real context: the cost profile (one API call, ~0.5s) and the ordering requirement relative to qase_result_record. It does not disclose what an update does to pre-existing run data or that update support is limited, which is a gap for an upsert of 13 parameters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and workflow role, then scoping, then alternatives and cost. No filler; the em-dash clause is dense with useful information rather than padding.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, alternatives and cost. It omits what the caller gets back (notably the run ID needed for the subsequent qase_result_record call) and any idempotency/update-overwrite behavior, but no output schema exists so return shape is not strictly required.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds framing by grouping milestone, environment, plan and case list as scoping axes, but does not add syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ("Create or update a test run") and immediately explains what the resource is for in the workflow ("the container results are recorded into"). It differentiates itself from siblings by naming qase_regression_run and qase_ci_report and the conditions that select them.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ("open it before qase_result_record") plus two named alternatives with their own selection conditions: qase_regression_run for suites/plans and qase_ci_report for finished CI jobs. The agent has everything needed to route correctly without opening any schema.

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