delete_execution

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by revealing that the deletion is soft, that it unlinks dependent runs, that it is reversible only via support/DB, and what the return value is. It also warns to 'use with care', which contextualizes destructiveHint=true without contradicting it.

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 three short sentences with zero wasted words. Core purpose is front-loaded, then side effects, then the alternative and return shape. Every sentence contributes meaningful information for tool selection and invocation.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the side effects, reversibility constraints, alternative behavior, and exact response shape. The idempotency is covered by annotations, so nothing material 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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a clear 'Execution UUID' description. The tool description adds contextual meaning by framing executionId as identifying 'an entire Manual Execution', but it does not add new format, lookup, or validation details. This meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete an entire Manual Test Execution'. It also explains the collateral behavior (unlinking manual runs that pointed to it), which clearly differentiates it from sibling operations like remove_source_from_execution.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which alternative to choose: 'To remove just one source group instead, use remove_source_from_execution.' This provides a clear decision boundary between the whole-execution deletion and a more targeted removal.

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