delete_test_case

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the operation is a soft delete, the case can be restored via the UI, and connected autotests are unlinked. These side effects are not visible from annotations alone and help the agent predict the full impact.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the restore path and the important side effect of unlinking autotests.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations, this description is sufficient. It explains what happens, how it can be undone, and what additional effects occur, so an agent can safely predict the behavior without an output schema.

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% and the only parameter, caseId, is already documented as 'Numeric test case ID to archive'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource ('a test case') and the specific behavior ('Soft delete (archive)'). It also separates it from sibling deletion tools by emphasizing archiving and restoration.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you want to archive a test case, and the restoration note implies the operation is reversible. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as removing a case from a collection instead of deleting it.

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