delete_test_scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone'), which is critical. However, it omits other behavioral details like whether deletion is cascading, permission requirements, or any side effects.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It is brief, but the lack of additional context (e.g., return behavior) could be considered too minimal for a destructive operation.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the action and the irreversibility. However, for a destructive action, one might expect explicit mention of what constitutes successful deletion (e.g., confirmation response).

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% for the single parameter, and the description ('by ID') aligns with the schema's description. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a test scenario by ID'), with the additional warning that it cannot be undone. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_test_case' or 'delete_test_suite'.

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 (e.g., other delete tools). There is no context about prerequisites, such as whether the scenario must exist or if there are dependencies.

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