Xray Remove Test Associations

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 usefully clarifies that only the association is severed ('Unlink'), not the Test itself, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens when no container list is supplied.

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; the scope (one Test, four container types) is delivered before any detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 destructive unlink mutation with full annotation coverage, a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers what is unlinked from what. Remaining gaps are minor: behavior when all container lists are omitted, and whether removal is atomic across the listed containers.

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%, so every parameter (test key/id, test_sets, test_plans, preconditions, test_executions, version_id) is already documented in the schema, placing the baseline at 3. The description only adds the implied combinability of the four association lists and does not clarify the precondition-only nature of version_id beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Unlink') and enumerates exactly which resources are affected (Preconditions, Test Sets, Test Plans, Test Executions) for a single Test. This distinguishes it from the look-alike bulk siblings, though it never names them explicitly (e.g. xray_remove_tests_from_test_set), so an agent must infer the difference from the singular 'one Test'.

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?

The 'and/or' phrasing implies the container lists are optional and combinable in a single call, which hints at usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. must the test exist / be linked), and no routing to the plural per-container alternatives like xray_remove_tests_from_test_set.

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