testmo_create_automation_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that the source is auto-created if missing, and that tags with matching automation tags on milestones auto-link the run. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on error. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then lists parameters. While it is clear and well-structured, it is somewhat lengthy due to repeated 'Automation' in parameter names. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of 11 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameter semantics and key behaviors like auto-creation. However, it lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., that the project must exist) and does not summarize the return value, though the output schema may cover that.

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 provides explanations for all 11 parameters, which is crucial since schema coverage is 0%. It goes beyond the schema by explaining precedence rules (e.g., config_id over config, milestone_id over milestone), auto-creation behavior for source, and structure hints for arrays like artifacts, fields, and links. This adds significant value.

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 'Create a new automation run in a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like testmo_append_automation_run (which adds results) and testmo_complete_automation_run (which finalizes). The verb 'create' and resource 'automation run' are specific.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is the starting point for a new run, after which append or complete should be used. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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