import_feature_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutation ('Creates or updates') but does not explain idempotency, whether existing tests are overwritten, what happens to associated artifacts, or authorization requirements. The agent is left to infer behavior from the minimal description.

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 highly concise: two sentences front-loaded with the main action and then the effect. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 simple tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on expected return values (e.g., test IDs, success/failure indicators) and edge cases (e.g., handling multiple scenarios). Given the tool's simplicity, a baseline of 3 is reasonable, but additional behavioral context would improve completeness.

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% (single parameter 'feature_content' described as 'Content of the .feature file (Gherkin syntax)'). The description adds context by stating the effect on BDD tests, but does not provide additional details on the parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb 'Import', the resource 'Cucumber .feature file', and the target 'Xray'. It explains the effect: 'Creates or updates BDD tests from Gherkin scenarios.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_cucumber_features (opposite direction) and import_cucumber_results (imports results, not features).

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 implies usage for importing feature files to create/update BDD tests, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate from import_cucumber_results (which imports execution results) or export_cucumber_features. An explicit 'use when you have .feature content' and 'not for importing test results' would improve clarity.

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