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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description supplies the consequences an agent actually needs: hard delete with no soft-delete recovery, cascading removal of all recorded results, rollback of test case verdicts to the previous surviving result or clearing when none remains, and child re-runs surviving with the parent link severed.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the irreversibility warning is front-loaded, followed by cascade effects and the least-obvious side effect on child re-runs. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything that affects a safe call: permanence, cascade scope, and downstream state changes. Remaining details (e.g., the empty return payload) are trivial relative to what is disclosed.

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% on the single required testRunId (UUID of the test run), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no format or lookup guidance for testRunId, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (delete a test run) plus its full scope (every result it recorded), and 'HARD delete' distinguishes it from any recovery path. An agent can immediately tell this apart from stride.delete_test_case, stride.delete_test_suite, or stride.record_test_results.

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 explicit 'no restore' warning gives clear decision context for when this tool is appropriate versus seemingly similar cleanup, and the sibling list confirms there is no restore_test_run counterpart. It stops short of naming an alternative for agents who merely want to remove individual results rather than the whole run.

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