delete_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether associated data (like plan entries or attachments) are also deleted, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents substantial missing context.

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 maximally concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration. The brevity is appropriate given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the behavioral implications of deletion, provide usage guidance relative to sibling tools, or explain what happens after invocation. Given the tool's potential impact and the rich ecosystem of related tools, more contextual information would help an AI agent use it appropriately and safely.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'plan_id' documented as 'Plan ID'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid plan ID, where to find it, or format requirements. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the parameter documentation work.

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 'Delete a test plan' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('test plan'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'delete_case', 'delete_milestone', or 'delete_plan_entry' - all of which also delete specific resources in what appears to be a test management system. The description is functional but generic within this context.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the plan must be closed first), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated test cases or runs), or when not to use it. In a system with multiple deletion tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap for an AI agent trying to select the right tool.

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