delete_test_plan

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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond, disclosing irreversibility (no trash/undo), non-idempotency, the 404 failure behavior for unknown keys, that the key is not reused, and the verified non-cascading behavior toward linked runs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and mostly dense with high-value facts, though it is on the long side with some redundancy around the 404/not-confirming point. Nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the return value ({ deleted: true, key }) despite no output schema, and fully describes failure modes, side effects, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool correctly 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage documenting the key format (e.g. PROJ-P123). The description adds behavioral nuance about mistyped keys 404-ing but no additional syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a test plan') plus the exact endpoint DELETE /testplan/{testPlanKey}, and clearly differentiates from siblings like delete_test_run and delete_test_case by contrast.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: if the intent was the linked runs, use delete_test_run instead, and states the plan does not cascade to runs. Also gives the when-not condition (unknown/mistyped/already-deleted key fails with 404 rather than confirming).

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