kiwi_remove_case_from_run

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

With no annotations present, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — that executions are also removed — which exceeds a bare 'removes from run' statement. However, it does not state whether the removal is permanent, whether executions are irreversibly destroyed, or how the tool behaves if the case is not in the run.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the side-effect clarification is placed in a compact parenthetical that earns its space. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple two-integer-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its cascade effect. However, because annotations are absent, the safety profile of this destructive operation is left unclear — an agent cannot tell whether removal is reversible or whether it permanently deletes execution data. A brief caveat about permanence would make it complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond what the parameter names already imply. The phrase 'from a run' weakly maps run_id to a run and case_id to a test case, but there is no detail on types, relationships, or expected value semantics. For a 0%-coverage schema, this is insufficient compensation.

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?

The description states a specific verb (remove), a resource (test case), and a location (from a run), which fully captures the operation. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling kiwi_remove_case_from_plan by specifying 'run' rather than 'plan'. The parenthetical '(and its executions)' adds precision about scope, removing any ambiguity about what removal entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kiwi_remove_case_from_plan or kiwi_delete_test_case. An agent must infer from the name alone that this targets run membership rather than plan membership or permanent case deletion. The description gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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