delete_case

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the important detail that runs are cascade-deleted along with the case, plus the guard requirement that confirm must equal the case_id. It does not state whether the deletion is reversible or recoverable via undo_change, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action and its blast radius, the human-approval requirement, and the confirm-value constraint. Front-loaded with zero 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, cascade scope, and confirmation contract. The notable omission is any statement about irreversibility or recovery, which matters given a sibling undo_change exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the non-obvious semantics of the confirm parameter (must equal the case_id) and the role of case_id, but the 'language' parameter and its ja/en/zh enum are never explained in either schema or description.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a case") and adds meaningful scope ("and all its runs"). It is clearly distinct from update_case, clone_case, and export_case by virtue of the delete verb, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

Provides a real precondition — "Ask the user first" — which tells the agent to obtain human confirmation before invoking. It does not, however, say when deletion is preferable to alternatives like update_case or undo_change, so usage is only partially guided.

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