BearQ: Delete Test Cases

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Deletion is reversible — tests are archived and can be restored' and 'Works on any unprotected test; protected tests are rejected'. This goes beyond the structured hints and informs the agent about consequences and limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences provide important behavioral details without redundancy. The parameters section is minimal and the entire description fits within a few lines, earning every word.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, reversibility, and protection conditions. It does not mention the return format or confirmation behavior, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and by its lack of an output schema.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'testCaseIds'. The description repeats the exact same wording without adding new meaning, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool 'Deletes specific BearQ test cases by ID', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly targeting BearQ test cases for deletion, separate from run/test execution tools.

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 implies usage for deletion tasks but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like bearq_run_test_cases or other BearQ operations. It provides a condition ('protected tests are rejected') that clarifies when the tool cannot be used, but lacks direct when/when-not guidance.

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