add_results_for_cases

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it's a write operation ('Add'), but does not disclose side effects like partial failures or validation behavior. It stays consistent with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core functionality and key differentiator. No filler or redundant wording, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the action, target, and unique usage caveat. While it omits details about the response format, the absence of an output schema and the presence of thorough parameter docs make this adequate.

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%, with each parameter (run_id, case_id, status_id, comment, defects) fully described including where to source IDs. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('test results to a test run'), and a distinguishing mechanism ('using case IDs instead of test IDs'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like add_results, which likely uses test IDs.

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 phrase 'using case IDs instead of test IDs' provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, implying that add_results is for test IDs. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, stopping short of a full when/when-not specification.

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