Delete case review

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

Annotations supply only idempotentHint, so the description carries the destructive profile and it does so well: irreversible ('cannot be undone'), human-in-the-loop ('asks the user for confirmation first'), side-effect boundaries (case untouched, merged reviews rejected), plus a cost/time estimate. This is exactly the behavioral context structured fields do not provide.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the disambiguation, then the constraints and cost. No sentence is redundant with the name, title, or schema, and the operational cost note is short enough to earn 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 2-param destructive delete with no output schema and only a single annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs: target identity, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, failure cases, and blast radius of the mutation. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% and both params (id with exclusiveMinimum, code with pattern/length) are fully documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats only 'by ID' and adds no format, validation, or project-scoping nuance, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a review by ID') and immediately disambiguates the operation from a superficially similar one ('this removes the proposal entirely — it does not decline it'). It also states the scope boundary that merged reviews are not deletable and the case is untouched, so an agent can distinguish this call from qase_review_update or qase_review_list 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?

Gives clear negative conditions: not for declining (UI-only), not for merged reviews. That tells the agent when this tool will fail. It stops short of naming a positive alternative neighbor (e.g. qase_review_update / qase_review_bulk_create) or stating prerequisites, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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