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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'no undo or receipt,' that source conversations remain, and that retry/recreation is not recovery. This clarifies the non-idempotent, irreversible nature in ways the annotations alone don't.

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?

The critical destructive fact is front-loaded in the first sentence. The closing sentence about lost responses is somewhat terse/cryptic, but overall it is efficient and earns most of its length.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description covers irreversibility, side effects on conversations, and retry semantics. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with minor room on permissions/preconditions.

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% with only two params, each fully documented in the schema (case_id, agent_id with source hints). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is 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 ('Permanently deletes') and precise resource ('this retained question, answers and evaluation'), and names the sibling (test_case_read) that shows the target. An agent can distinguish it from test_case_edit/list without opening a 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?

Points the agent to test_case_read to confirm the exact target/evidence before removal, which is meaningful pre-call guidance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use edit vs remove or stating prerequisites like permissions.

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