delete_test_run

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and non-idempotent, but the description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: the delete is a soft delete that moves the run to the trash and is restorable. It does not cover permissions or side effects on related test results.

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 second sentence ('Delete a test run using its unique identifier.') largely repeats the first verb+resource statement, wasting space. The third sentence (trash/restore) carries the real value and should have been front-loaded with the rest.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing behavior (soft delete + restore path). It would be complete with a pointer to restore_test_run for recovery, but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is nested (path.testRunId), so the schema does not explain the wrapper. The description only says 'using its unique identifier', which confirms the id is required but adds no format or source details.

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+resource ('Delete a test run') and clarifies the identifier-based target. It does not name the closely related sibling restore_test_run or post_batch_delete_test_runs, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though restore_test_run and post_batch_delete_test_runs exist as obvious siblings. The soft-delete note implies recoverability but is not framed as usage guidance.

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