delete_test_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the important caveat that the underlying API method may not be available on most installations, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like the destructive nature (though the verb 'delete' is self-evident) or any permissions or permanence, leaving some gaps.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a critical caveat in an efficient manner, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides the essential caveat about API availability but omits parameter semantics. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, but for a delete operation this may not be critical. Overall, it is moderately complete but has clear gaps in parameter guidance.

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 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the testPlanId parameter at all. The parameter name and type are present in the schema, but no additional meaning is provided, such as where to find the ID or its format. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Delete a test plan.' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete other entities like delete_test_suite. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 clear usage guidance by instructing to run list_available_api_methods first to confirm the server exposes the API, effectively telling the agent when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the caveat implies it should not be used if the method is unavailable, which is a clear prerequisite.

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