Delete test run

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

Annotations only carry idempotentHint, so the description properly carries the behavioral load: it discloses irreversibility, the cascading destruction of all contained results, a user-confirmation prompt, and the cost (~1 API call, ~0.4s). This is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs before invoking.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the alternative routing and the safety/cost note. Every sentence carries distinct information; no 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, cascade effect, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, alternatives, and cost. An agent can decide and call correctly with nothing missing.

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% (id and code both documented with format/pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description names the two keys but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 run'), names the exact scoping keys (project code and ID), and discloses the cascade ('together with every result in it'). It is immediately distinguishable from qase_result_delete and qase_run_complete.

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 frames when NOT to use it ('Rarely what you want') and routes to the right alternatives with the condition that selects each: qase_run_complete to stop accepting results, qase_result_delete to fix a single result. Nothing is left to inference.

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