Delete test result

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: scope of destruction ('the case and the rest of the run are untouched'), irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), a downstream side effect ('pass rates shift'), an interactive confirmation step, and a cost/latency estimate. Not a 5 only because it doesn't state auth or permission requirements; 'cannot be undone' is consistent with (not contradictory to) idempotentHint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target, then routing, then consequences, then cost. No filler; every sentence adds a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope of impact, reversibility, the sibling alternative, the confirmation gate, and expected cost. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and warn the user appropriately.

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 the schema already documents code, run_id and hash, and the description adds no syntax or sourcing detail (e.g., where a result hash comes from or whether it can be retrieved). It merely restates that run ID and hash identify the target — baseline 3.

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 (Delete), a precisely scoped resource (one result from a run), and the identifying keys (run ID, result hash). It also names the sibling it is not — qase_run_delete — so an agent can distinguish it from the whole-run deletion 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 the agent: discard a whole run -> qase_run_delete, and single result -> this tool. It also discloses a precondition that changes invocation behavior ('Asks the user for confirmation first'), which is usage guidance, not just description.

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