Permanently removes an agent chat response test using its test_id, which is returned when the test is created. Use it to clean up obsolete response tests from ElevenLabs.
Delete Agent Response Test
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_id | Yes | The id of a chat response test. This is returned on test creation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement that the deletion is permanent, whether the test_id must exist, or what an error looks like. It is consistent with the annotations, not contradictory.
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 three-word phrase is maximally concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There is no wasted sentence, yet it also carries no useful information beyond the 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 low-complexity, single-parameter delete whose safety semantics are fully carried by annotations, the description is just barely adequate. It omits irreversibility, not-found behavior, and any mention of the paired create/get/update tools an agent might need.
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 single test_id parameter is documented as 'returned on test creation'. The description adds no additional meaning, 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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Agent Response Test), which is enough to place it among the delete_* siblings. However, it uses 'Agent Response Test' while the tool name and schema say 'chat response test', creating mild terminology ambiguity, and it does not differentiate itself from update_agent_response_test_route or get_agent_response_test_route.
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 the sibling test-management tools (create/get/update/list response tests), nor any prerequisite or caution. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.