Delete shared step

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

Annotations provide only idempotentHint, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: it discloses the cascade blast radius (every referencing case loses those steps), irreversibility, a user confirmation prompt, and cost/latency. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, no filler: impact warning first, then safeguards and the alternative, then confirmation behavior and cost. The most decision-relevant fact (wide reach) is front-loaded.

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, alternatives, irreversibility, confirmation, and cost — everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 parameters (code, hash) are documented in the schema with format hints. The description merely restates them as 'project code and hash' without adding new syntax or constraint meaning, so 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 (Delete) and resource (shared step) with the identification keys (project code + hash), which is unambiguous against siblings like qase_shared_step_upsert. An agent can distinguish it from the other *_delete tools immediately.

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: use qase_shared_step_upsert to change content rather than delete, and check references before deleting. It also flags that the operation is irreversible, giving a clear when-not-to-proceed condition.

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