Delete test case

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries the destructive profile and does so well: it discloses collateral damage ('its execution history goes with it'), irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), the one-per-call limitation, and a human confirmation requirement. It even quantifies cost at one API call / ~0.4s. Nothing contradicts idempotentHint=true.

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 compact sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what is destroyed plus the safer alternative, then the batching and cost constraints. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: scope, irreversibility, execution-history loss, the non-bulk constraint, the confirmation requirement, and the alternate safe path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or avoid it.

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%, so both parameters (code, id) are already documented with pattern and range constraints. The description only restates that identification is by project code and ID, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Delete a test case') and narrows the identifier to 'by project code and ID', which maps directly onto the two schema properties. An agent can distinguish it from qase_case_upsert and other *_delete siblings 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 routes to an alternative ('consider marking it deprecated through qase_case_upsert instead') and states an exclusion ('No bulk delete — one call each, each asking the user for confirmation'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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