qase_run_upsert

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the key behavioral fact that the tool performs an upsert and notes limited update support in the Qase API. However, it does not disclose what happens to omitted fields during updates or other side effects.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core behavior. Every word is necessary, and no information is redundant.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks needed context. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or how the test run is structured. Users must rely solely on the input schema for parameter understanding.

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 54%, so the description is not required to extensively cover parameters. The description clarifies the role of the 'id' parameter for distinguishing create vs. update, which adds semantic value beyond the schema. However, it offers no further explanation for other parameters.

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 it creates or updates a test run, with the logic based on the presence of an 'id' parameter. It directly conveys the dual purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like qase_case_upsert or qase_defect_upsert.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the id-based upsert logic but does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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