Xray Set Test Run Timer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the three timer modes (start/pause/reset), which are already implied by the parameters; it says nothing about permission requirements, whether an in-progress timer survives a pause, or reversibility.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's branching behavior, but nothing in it 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?

An output schema exists and all three parameters are documented, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with branching modes, the absence of any guidance on mode combination or preconditions leaves the description at minimum viability.

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% – reset, running, and test_run_id are each documented in the schema, including the source of the test run id. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail (e.g., precedence when both reset and running are supplied) beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 set (start/pause/reset) and a precise resource (the execution timer of a test run), which distinguishes it from the nearby xray_reset_test_run and xray_update_test_run. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 context, no prerequisites (e.g., must the run be in a particular state, must the timer not already be running), and no routing away from xray_reset_test_run or xray_update_test_run. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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