Xray Remove Tests From Test Execution

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a specific consequence beyond the annotations: deleting the associated test runs. This is useful context, though it stops short of covering irreversibility or 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the action and its key side effect.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so by mentioning test-run deletion, but it could be slightly more complete by noting side effects on the execution's status or confirming irreversibility.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints, making the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove'), resource ('Tests'), and target scope ('from a Test Execution'), and it explicitly notes the deletion of test runs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like add_tests_to_test_execution or remove_tests_from_test_set.

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 description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It merely restates the action, which is insufficient given the many similar remove_* siblings. An agent gets no help choosing between this and, for example, remove_test_associations.

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