Delete suite

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

With only idempotentHint in annotations, the description carries the real burden and delivers: it discloses the cascade (cases inside and child suites deleted with history), flags that delete_cases has no effect, notes the confirmation prompt, and gives cost/latency. This is exactly the context annotations cannot express for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the WARNING, then the recovery advice, confirmation behavior, and cost. Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet for a destructive delete the description covers cascade effects, the misleading parameter, prerequisite context, confirmation behavior, and cost. An agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description mentions project code and ID and reinforces the no-op nature of delete_cases, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 suite') plus the identifying scope (project code and ID). An agent can distinguish it from qase_suite_upsert and the other *_delete siblings without opening any 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 a clear prerequisite workflow ('Read the tree from qase_project_context and move what matters first') and notes it asks for user confirmation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like qase_suite_upsert, but the destructive-warning framing makes the when-to-use condition unambiguous.

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