Xray Create Test Execution

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds that creating an execution generates one test run per Test, which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover permissions, duplicate-call effects, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. The linking note is useful and brief.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema for returns, and 80% schema coverage, the description supplies the essential purpose and a key workflow hook (linking to plans). It could say more about idempotency or prerequisites, but it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema documents most parameters (tests, project, extra_fields, test_environments). The description only gestures at tests ('with Tests') without adding format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Create a Test Execution issue with Tests (one test run per Test) is a precise verb+resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling creators (Test, Test Plan, Test Set, Precondition) by naming the exact issue type. The linking instruction further clarifies its place in the Xray workflow.

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 explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a new execution vs. reusing an existing one, or when to use xray_add_test_executions_to_test_plan). The only guidance is a follow-up linking action via test_plans tools, which is not a usage condition.

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