delete_test_case

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

Goes far beyond the single destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses irreversibility, the exact scope of loss (case, script, execution history), the absence of inbound-reference checking, and the concrete consequence of orphaned 'Call to Test' steps. This is exactly the pre-call warning an agent needs before a destructive operation.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the action+endpoint, the irreversibility and blast radius, the referential-integrity caveat, and the return shape. The destructive warning is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything missing from structured fields: destruction scope, referential side effects, and the return shape ({ deleted: true, key }). An agent can call this correctly and warn the user with no further information.

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 single parameter already documents its format ('PROJ-T123'), so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Permanently delete a test case') and anchors it to the concrete endpoint DELETE /testcase/{testCaseKey}. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings get_test_case, update_test_case, and clone_test_case without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the explicit irreversibility warning, which tells the agent this is the last-resort path rather than a routine edit. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., update_test_case or move_test_cases_to_folder) or states when deletion is appropriate versus when it should be avoided.

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