delete_execution

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the soft-delete semantics (only result rows are removed; collections/suites/cases survive), the reversibility path (support or database only), the 'Execution not found' trap after deletion, and the return contract ('returns deleted: true'). Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations — the idempotentHint is consistent with a re-call best trouble behavior — so no annotation contradiction.

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?

The key verb, scope, and warning are front-loaded; every sentence in the long description earns its keep, particularly the ordering warning and the explicit alternative. It loses only a point to mild filler ('use with care') and a slight redundancy between the two sentences about the remove_source consequence.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this is complete: it states the return value, what is destroyed, what survives, the ordering precondition, and the post-condition failure mode. The idempotence trait is already covered by annotations. An agent needs nothing else to invoke it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema-description coverage ('Execution UUID'), the schema already fully documents executionId, so the description carries no obligation to re-explain it. The description does not add syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, correctly leaving parameter semantics to the baseline.

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 action ('soft-delete an entire Manual Test Execution') and a concrete side effect ('unlink any Test Collections that pointed to it'). It scopes what is destroyed versus preserved and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_source_from_execution, so an agent can tell them apart without perusing the 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?

The description explicitly names the alternative that selects it away ('To remove just one source group instead of the whole execution, use remove_source_from_execution') and hard-codes a sequencing prerequisite ('do any per-source cleanup FIRST'). It also warns about the consequence of ignoring that ordering, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both given from inference.

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