Xray Reset Test Run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating exactly what is lost: status, comments, evidence, and step results. It stops short of saying whether the reset is reversible or what permissions are needed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the destructive consequence. No filler and nothing an agent needs to skip past.

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 single-param mutation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential risk (what data is discarded). The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to xray_update_test_run, which is a minor omission given the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including where to obtain the id (xray_get_test_execution or xray_get_test_runs). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the load and 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 (reset) and resource (test run) plus the exact scope of the reset. It reads clearly against siblings like xray_update_test_run, but the description never names or contrasts with those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for wiping a run back to a clean state rather than making a targeted edit. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of xray_update_test_run as the non-destructive alternative, and no prerequisite (e.g., completed runs) stated.

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