Delete a test case folder by its unique ID. All test cases and subfolders inside are moved to the trash and can be restored later.
Delete a folder. Delete a test case folder using its unique identifier. Deleted folders are moved to the trash and can be restored later if needed.
When you delete a folder, all test cases and subfolders within that folder are also moved to the trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the base safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: deletion is soft (moved to trash, restorable) and cascades to all test cases and subfolders, which is the key risk an agent needs. Idempotency is not clarified.
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?
Front-loads the action, then the scope, then the two behavioral facts. Slightly repetitive ('Delete a folder' immediately followed by the more specific restatement), but no substantive waste.
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, cascading delete with no output schema and no real parameter documentation, the description covers the most important behavioral facts but omits permissions required, whether the cascade is recoverable as a unit, and the exact identifier path. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0% and the nested object's property is barely described ('The test case folder identifier'). The description says 'using its unique identifier', which adds little beyond the property name testCaseFolderId. It does not explain the nested path.testCaseFolderId structure, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a folder') and then scopes it precisely to 'a test case folder using its unique identifier', which distinguishes it from the many sibling delete_* tools for issues, risks, teams, etc.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling restore_folder as the recovery path even though restoration is described. Usage is implied by the verb but not routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.