DeleteUnitTest

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states that the tool will return an error, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on the error type or any side effects, providing minimal but adequate transparency.

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 consists of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is extremely concise and front-loads the purpose and critical limitation, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete by stating the purpose and the error outcome. However, additional context such as expected error message or workaround would improve completeness for an agent encountering this tool.

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 provides a description for the run_id parameter (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 (delete) and resource (ABAP Unit test run), which is specific and distinguishes from sibling delete tools. However, the note that ADT does not support this operation undermines the tool's purpose, confusing the agent about its utility.

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 tool will return an error, effectively telling the agent not to use it. However, it offers no guidance on when to use the tool or alternatives for deleting unit test runs, leaving the agent without actionable usage direction.

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