Xray Remove Test Executions From Test Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context such as irreversibility or effect on linked executions. With no added disclosure, a 2 is appropriate.

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. It is appropriately sized for a simple removal action, though it is essentially a title restatement. A 4 reflects concision with minimal added structure.

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?

Output schema, rich annotations, and complete parameter docs cover most call requirements. The description still lacks usage guidance and sibling differentiation, especially against xray_remove_tests_from_test_plan. A 3 reflects adequate but incomplete context.

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 are well documented in the input schema. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 Test Executions from a Test Plan'), so the action is clear. However, it adds nothing beyond the name/title and does not differentiate from siblings like xray_remove_tests_from_test_plan. A 4 is appropriate because it is clear but lacks sibling-specific routing.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema. This is 'no guidance' rather than misleading, so 2.

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