Delete test plan

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (the plan only), what survives (cases and runs), the downstream consequence (anything launching by ID breaks), irreversibility, and confirmation behavior. Cost and latency are added bonuses.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and progressively layering impact, irreversibility, and the alternative. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope of destruction, side effects, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and the correct sibling for the adjacent intent.

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 both required parameters are fully documented there, so the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond "project code and ID." Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 plan") and pins the scope with "by project code and ID." It also names qase_plan_upsert as the sibling for a different intent, so an agent can route without opening either 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 case-modification intent to qase_plan_upsert and explains the prerequisite context (user is asked for confirmation). It gives a clear context for use but no explicit statement of when NOT to delete, so it stops short of the top band.

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