Xray Remove All Test Steps

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful scoping fact – steps only exist on manual Tests – but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the operation is scoped to a version, or what remains after removal.

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 short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, and the 'manual Test' qualifier is a meaningful constraint. It stops just short of stating irreversibility or the version-scoping behavior an agent might want to know before wiping all steps.

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% and both parameters (test, version_id) are documented in the schema, including accepted formats and the current-version default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove all steps from a manual Test'), and the scope word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling xray_remove_test_step, which removes a single step. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to the agent to infer 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to the closely related xray_remove_test_step, xray_update_test_step, or xray_add_test_step siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'manual Test'.

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