delete_test_run

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description adds the irreversibility, the immutability of test runs (no PUT /testrun), the surprising 2xx-on-nonexistent-key DELETE semantics, and the GET pre-check that gates deletion. It even discloses the response shape and the caveat that success does not prove prior existence when the pre-check fails.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded: destruction scope and irreversibility come first, then the immutability constraint, then escape hatches, then the verification caveat. Almost every sentence carries non-redundant operational detail, though the immutability/escape-hatch passage could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by documenting the return object and the existenceVerified:false edge case. Combined with the verification behavior, key format, and alternative routes, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the key format with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the endpoint path reference (DELETE /testrun/{key}), which is context rather than parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource ('Permanently delete a test run / test cycle') and immediately enumerates the full blast radius (execution results, attachments, test-plan links), plus the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from delete_test_case, delete_test_plan and recreate_test_run_with_items without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternatives (recreate_test_run_with_items, update_test_run, add_test_cases_to_run, remove_test_cases_from_run) and the conditions that select them, including the ZEPHYR_ALLOW_INTERNAL_API=true prerequisite. It also prescribes the intended public workflow ('delete + create_test_run with the full desired items') for the task the agent will actually want.

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