Xray Add Test Run Evidence

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful context that evidence may be supplied inline as base64 or by an uploaded attachment id, but it does not disclose duplicate behavior, permissions, or the consequence of calling it repeatedly for a non-idempotent operation.

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 with no wasted words. It states the operation, the accepted input forms, and the target resource immediately.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain non-idempotent duplicate behavior or the practical prerequisite of uploading a file first when using attachment_id, leaving meaningful operational context to be inferred from sibling tools or schema descriptions.

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 only 50%, so the description must help compensate. It does add the meaningful distinction that the 'evidence' payload can be base64 data or an uploaded attachment id, but it says nothing about test_run_id provenance or filename/mime_type requirements beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 states a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('evidence files') targeted at a 'test run,' which cleanly distinguishes it from broader attachment upload tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as xray_remove_test_run_evidence or xray_upload_attachment, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

It mentions two supported input modes ('base64 or uploaded attachment ids'), which gives some usage context, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like xray_upload_attachment or xray_remove_test_run_evidence. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow guidance.

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