addResultsForCases

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

No annotations provided, yet the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It omits information about required permissions, side effects, or error conditions for this mutation tool.

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 with one sentence and a Japanese translation. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from a tiny bit more detail.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., success status, result IDs). It also does not mention error handling or prerequisites like existing run/cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 adds test results for multiple test cases in a test run, using a specific verb and resource. The plural form distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'addResultForCase'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'addResultForCase' for single results or 'addRun' for creating runs. The description lacks context for selection.

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