Clear test cases

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the deletion is irreversible ('This cannot be undone') and is limited to 'manually added' cases, implying generated cases are untouched. This clarifies the operational impact without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical caution ('cannot be undone') and a usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive action with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted, scope ('manually added'), irreversibility, and when to call it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%: the only parameter, session_id, is documented with type, minLength, and 'Build session id'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and the schema already provides sufficient semantic grounding, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a precise verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('test case'), and the scope ('every manually added test case from a draft'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling repovive_build_delete_testcase (which deletes a single test case) and repovive_build_add_testcases (which adds them).

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 gives actionable guidance: 'use it before uploading a replacement set' signals the intended workflow. It implies bulk removal vs. per-testcase deletion among siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative (repovive_build_delete_testcase) or state when NOT to use it.

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