api_suite_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Replay', which suggests execution, but it does not state any side effects, whether it is read-only or mutating, what it returns, or any required setup (e.g., authentication). This is a significant gap for a tool that executes tests.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and adds the essential prerequisite in parentheses. No filler 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?

For a tool that executes test suites, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'replay' entails: whether it runs assertions, returns results, or affects state. There is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate the outcome. The mention of save=true is helpful, but the behavioral outcome is missing, leaving an agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 0% (the description never names the 'name' field). However, the description's phrase 'by name' implies the purpose of the name parameter (the suite name), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. It does not provide constraints like existence checks or formats, but for a single parameter this is adequate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Replay' with the resource 'previously saved API test suite' and explicitly ties it to 'api_test_suite with save=true', which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like api_suite_list (list) and api_test_suite (create/save). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: the suite must have been previously saved with save=true, which indicates when this tool is appropriate. It implies you should have a saved suite name in hand. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the condition is stated and the sibling tools provide enough context.

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