qase_triage_defect

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'the API offers no way to attach existing runs or results to a defect — the runs/results seen on a defect are populated by the test runner when a result is reported as a defect.' This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false and openWorld=true. It does not contradict any 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value—the purpose, the mandatory fields, and a critical API limitation with a workaround. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core use case and a critical limitation, which is good for a create tool with an output schema. However, it omits the required 'code' parameter entirely and does not address optional parameters like tags, attachments, or custom_field. Given 8 parameters and nested objects, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

The description adds some meaning for actual_result ('Reference failing results in actual_result instead') and clarifies that severity is 'Required by the API,' but it incorrectly states 'Requires title, actual_result, and severity' while omitting 'code,' which is also required per the schema. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate and introduces a misleading requirement list.

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 'Create a defect from a test failure,' which uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('defect') with a clear context ('from a test failure'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool qase_defect_upsert, which likely supports update operations.

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 provides a clear context for use ('from a test failure') and gives important guidance about how to handle the API limitation: 'Reference failing results in actual_result instead.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, and the statement about required fields is incomplete.

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