Xray Create Precondition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail ('optionally linked to Tests'), but omits what is returned, whether linking requires pre-existing test keys, and any auth or folder constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 7-parameter create tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers most parameters. However, for a create tool with optional linking, a defaulted type, and an open-ended extra_fields object, the description leaves real gaps around interaction with sibling linking tools and the meaning of the precondition types.

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 86%, so the schema already documents project, tests, definition, folder_path, extra_fields, and precondition_type. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Precondition issue') and adds the linking capability. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from sibling creation tools such as xray_create_test, relying on the reader to infer the differences 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 guidance on when to use this versus xray_create_test or xray_add_tests_to_precondition, nor any prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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