remove_source_from_execution

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that removal is cascading ('ALL its case-run rows and step results'), that the execution itself is preserved, and that the return value is 'removed: true'. DestructiveHint and readOnlyHint in the annotations are consistent; the added detail about cascade is not available from annotations alone.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, cascade behavior, how to find the ID, what is not deleted, and exact return JSON. The most critical information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description prepares the agent with everything needed to call it successfully: parameter source, destructive scope, boundary of operation, and expected response. No additional missing context is required for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters with descriptions, providing baseline. The description adds operational meaning for runId by telling the agent where to find it (get_execution or get_execution_cases) and confirms executionId as 'Execution UUID', reinforcing schema. This goes beyond simple label repetition.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('source group... from an execution'), and clarifies what a source group is (suite, collection, or named case-group as one execution_test_run). It also distinguishes itself from delete_execution by explicitly stating 'Does not delete the execution itself.'

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 clear guidance on how to obtain the required runId via get_execution (sources[].id) or get_execution_cases (groupId). It also implies the alternative of deleting the whole execution is separate, but it doesn't name that sibling or describe when not to use this tool versus other execution-modifying tools like set_execution_source_status.

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