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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that deletion is soft (deletedAt), that repeat invocations yield ALREADY_DELETED, and that they don't refresh the cleanup-cron clock. Those details — especially the cron-clock caveat — are non-obvious and materially affect correct invocation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the mechanism, then the recovery path. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter soft-delete with no output schema, everything needed is present: semantics, idempotency behavior, error signal, and how to reverse it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and there is only one parameter (testCaseId, UUID), so the schema already carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or source, so the 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 plus resource ('Soft-delete a test case') and immediately disambiguates the flavor of deletion by describing the deletedAt mechanism. An agent can distinguish it from stride.delete_test_run, stride.delete_test_suite, and stride.delete_test_case's own restore path without opening any schema.

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 names the reverse operation explicitly ('Restore with stride.restore_test_case') and warns that repeat calls return ALREADY_DELETED, which effectively tells the agent not to retry. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it's clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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