Xray Remove Tests From Test Plan

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the removal action — it does not say what gets deleted, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur. With annotations already carrying the safety information, the description's lack of any additional context is a clear gap.

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. However, it merely echoes the title and does not earn its place by adding any actionable information. It is concise but under-informative rather than efficiently structured.

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 removal tool with a 100% documented schema and rich annotations, the minimal description is survivable. However, it provides no routing guidance among many similar sibling tools and no caution beyond what the annotations already state. The structured data compensates enough that the description is not wholly inadequate, but clear gaps remain.

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 (test_plan and tests) with examples and accepted formats. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim: 'Remove Tests from a Test Plan.' It states a specific verb and resource, but it adds no distinguishing information beyond the title and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as xray_remove_tests_from_test_set or xray_remove_tests_from_precondition. This fits the rubric's 'tautology' category more than a genuinely informative purpose statement.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the related 'add_tests_to_test_plan' tool, nor does it clarify that it is for removing existing tests rather than test executions (a distinction covered by the sibling 'remove_test_executions_from_test_plan'). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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