Delete Test Suite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with an explicit CAUTION warning. It adds the useful caveat that nested entities are handled according to Allure TestOps's tree-group API behavior, though it stops short of explaining exactly what happens to those nested items. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 short and front-loaded: the core action and a danger warning appear in the first two lines, followed by the nested-entity caveat. There is no filler or repetition, though the final sentence is somewhat vague and could be more specific without hurting conciseness.

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 a destructive tool with detailed per-parameter schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is removed, warns about destructiveness, and flags nested-entity behavior. It does not need to repeat the confirm flag or output format details already in the schema. The main gap is the unspecified effect on child nodes, but the API-behavior caveat at least acknowledges this nuance.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including the confirm safety measure and optional tree_id/project_id. The description adds only a slight reinforcement that suite_id targets a suite/group node, but does not need to explain parameter semantics further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a test suite node from hierarchy.' It further defines the target as a 'suite/group node,' which distinguishes it clearly from sibling deletion tools like delete_test_case, delete_test_plan, and delete_launch. The purpose is immediately identifiable and unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context: this tool is for removing hierarchy suite/group nodes, so it is appropriate when deleting a test suite node rather than a test case, plan, launch, or shared step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the resource scoping is sufficient for correct routing in most cases.

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