Xray Add Tests To Test Execution

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the side effect that each added Test spawns a test run, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the notable side effect supplied in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With a full schema, an output schema present, and annotations declaring the safety and idempotency profile, the essential information is covered. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the numerous sibling add/remove tools.

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 both parameters (tests array of Jira keys/ids and test_execution key/id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, placing it at 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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (Tests to a Test Execution), and adds the non-obvious side effect that a test run is created per Test. It does not differentiate from close siblings like xray_add_tests_to_test_set or xray_add_tests_to_test_plan, which share the same verb pattern, so an agent must infer the target-resource distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xray_remove_tests_from_test_execution or xray_create_test_execution, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the name.

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