Xray Update Precondition

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the safety picture is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: the 'and/or' slightly hints at partial updates, but it never says what happens to unspecified or null fields, nor what the update returns or whether the change is reversible.

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; the only weakness is that it is a fragment that never names the tool's subject beyond 'a Precondition,' leaving no room for guidance.

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, so return values need not be described, and the safety annotations cover the mutation profile. Still, for a mutation tool in a large family of near-identically named siblings, the definition omits partial-update semantics and any routing guidance, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents folder_path, precondition_type, and the precondition identifier. The description names the same three updatable fields but contributes no format, validation, or 'null means leave unchanged' semantics beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline 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 (Update) and resource (Precondition) and enumerates the mutable aspects (type, definition, folder), which cleanly separates it from the many xray_update_* siblings that target tests, test runs, or folders. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those nearest siblings such as xray_update_test_definition.

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 gives no indication of when to reach for this tool versus xray_get_precondition, xray_create_precondition, or xray_delete_precondition, and states no prerequisites such as required Jira permissions. Usage must be inferred 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.