Xray Update Test Run Iteration 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 safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds only the scoping fact that a single iteration is targeted; it says nothing about required permissions, what happens to the parent test run's overall status, or whether changes are 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 redundant or filler text; the scope qualifier (one iteration of a data-driven test run) is exactly what matters.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool surrounded by several near-identical status/step siblings, the description is too thin to route the agent reliably and omits any note on how the iteration status relates to the test run's own status.

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%, and the schema itself supplies examples for status and provenance hints for test_run_id and iteration_rank, so the baseline applies. The description contributes no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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), resource (status of one iteration of a data-driven test run) and scope, which is more precise than the bare tool name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling xray_update_test_run_example_status, which an agent could easily confuse with iteration status.

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 versus xray_update_test_run, xray_update_test_run_step, or xray_update_test_run_example_status. The context is implied by the phrase 'data-driven test run' but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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