Xray Update Test Run

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not obliged to restate safety. It adds nothing else though: it never says whether omitted fields are left untouched (partial vs. full update), whether it needs write permission on the execution, or how custom fields merge.

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 naming the verb, resource, and the field set, with no filler. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing 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, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. Still, for an 8-parameter mutation the description omits the key operational fact an agent needs: whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields preserved) or a replacement, and how the custom_fields array interacts with existing values.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (status examples, ISO timestamps, Atlassian account ids, custom field shape). The description only re-lists the same field names in prose, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Update a test run') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what it changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like xray_update_test_run_step, xray_update_test_run_defects, or xray_reset_test_run.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools that also mutate test runs. The agent must infer that this is the general-purpose run-update tool versus the more targeted step/defect/reset variants.

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