Xray Update Test Run Example Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered without the description. The description adds no further behavioral context (no error behavior, no effect on the parent run/progress counters, no permission notes), so it does not go beyond the structured data.

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 the verb, scope, and unit of change, containing no redundant or filler text.

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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note on valid status transitions or what happens if the example_id does not belong to a run, which would help an agent call it correctly.

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%, with both parameters documented (status naming convention and example_id provenance from xray_get_test_run). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Set the status') and a precisely scoped resource ('one Cucumber Scenario Outline example in a test run'). The word 'example' implicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like xray_update_test_run_iteration_status and xray_update_test_run_step, though no sibling is named 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xray_update_test_run_iteration_status, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the example must belong to an existing run). The agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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