Xray Import Execution Results Xml

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a 'multipart import' mode exists and that issues are 'created' by the import, but it omits practical consequences such as duplicate Test/Test Execution creation on re-import or auth/permission requirements.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose and the supported formats come first, and the mode guidance follows – appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the mode distinction, but could note side effects like creating Tests/Test Executions and the non-idempotent re-import risk for a write-heavy import tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by grouping the 10 parameters into two coherent usage modes and clarifying that test_execution_info/test_info are for full control over created issues. That framing meaningfully helps an agent choose a parameter combination.

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 (import) and resource (XML test report into Xray) and enumerates the supported formats (JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, xUnit, Robot). This cleanly distinguishes it from the JSON sibling import tool and the Cucumber import tool.

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?

Explicitly describes two invocation modes: the 'simple parameters' path (project_key, test_execution_key, ...) versus the 'full control' multipart path with test_execution_info/test_info. It doesn't name the trade-offs (e.g. exactly when to prefer full control) or directly contrast with xray_import_execution_results_json, but the mode selection guidance is clear.

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