Xray Create Test Plan

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so an agent knows calling it mutates state. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say a repeat call creates a second plan, what permissions are needed, or how the two test-sourcing paths (tests vs saved_filter) interact.

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 sentence is appropriately short, but the 'e.g. fixVersions via extra_fields' clause is a non sequitur attached to the tests clause and creates rather than removes ambiguity.

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 five parameters, two required, and two competing ways to attach tests (tests keys/ids vs saved_filter), the description should explain how those interact and which wins. Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the input-side ambiguity is left unaddressed.

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 already documents tests, project, summary, extra_fields and saved_filter. The description restates the optional-Tests behavior and gives a fixVersions example that duplicates the extra_fields schema description rather than clarifying semantics. 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 Test Plan issue') and notes the optional association with Tests, which distinguishes it from siblings like xray_create_test and xray_create_test_set. The trailing parenthetical is muddled, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus xray_add_tests_to_test_plan (for existing plans) or when to prefer saved_filter over an explicit tests list. The 'optionally with Tests' phrasing implies a use case but names no alternatives or prerequisites.

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