create_test_execution

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

The description only indicates creation, which implies mutation, but provides no details on side effects, permissions required, or return behavior. With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence, but lacks structure such as bullet points or sections. While short, it may be under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide context on return values, behavior, or usage workflow. It only gives the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no additional context to the parameters, matching the baseline of 3.

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 action (Create) and the resource (test execution in Jira with Xray). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_test and create_test_plan by specifying 'test execution'. However, it could be more specific about the scope and purpose of a test execution.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_execution_results or add_tests_to_test_plan. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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