remove_source_from_execution

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: the cascade deletion of case-run rows and step results, the fact that the execution remains intact, and the exact return value { removed: true }. This meaningfully informs the agent about side effects.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information: what is removed, the destructive cascade effect, how to find the required id, and the return value. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the removal target, how to obtain the id, the cascade impact, the boundary (execution not deleted), and the response shape. Combined with a thorough parameter schema and annotations, nothing critical is 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 coverage is already 100% with detailed runId explanation; the description further reinforces how to get runId and emphasizes that runId is the source group id, not the original suite/collection id. This adds practical lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (Remove), the resource (a source group from an execution), and precisely defines what a source group is: a suite, collection, or named case-group represented by one execution_test_run. It also distinguishes itself from deleting the whole execution, so an agent can correctly separate it from sibling tools like delete_execution.

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 gives actionable guidance on how to obtain the runId: from get_execution (sources[].id) or get_execution_cases (groupId). It states that the execution itself is not deleted, which hints at the difference from delete_execution, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or specify when not to use this tool.

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