delete_test_suite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms permanence ('cannot be undone') adding slight extra context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects on related objects, or confirmation steps. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the action and its permanence, the second specifies the input format. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and directly informative.

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 simple deletion tool with annotations and output schema, the description covers the key aspects: permanence and input acceptance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether the suite must be empty) or effects on related data. Overall, it is mostly sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage but descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description adds meaning by stating that the 'suite' parameter accepts ID or name, clarifying its acceptable formats. This goes beyond the schema's generic description. The 'project' parameter remains unspecified, but the added context for 'suite' is valuable.

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: 'Permanently delete a test suite.' It specifies the resource (test suite) and the operation (delete), and distinguishes from sibling delete_* tools by targeting a specific entity. The mention of accepting 'suite ID or name' adds clarity on input format.

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 a warning that the action cannot be undone but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_test_case, delete_test_plan, etc.). The usage context is implied—when you need to delete a test suite—but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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