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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the removal is irreversible ("Ankra cannot show that value again, so it cannot be recovered from here"), the manifest declaration survives, and already-running Deployments retain the sealed value until the next apply. That is exactly the consequence information an agent needs before committing 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the primary effect is front-loaded, followed by the irreversibility caveat and then the deployment-timing nuance. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what is destroyed, whether it can be restored, and the blast radius on running Deployments. Combined with destructiveHint and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_application_env_secrets for valid keys. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Clear the stored value of one of an Application's environment secrets") and immediately distinguishes what is removed (the value Ankra holds) from what is not (the key declared in manifests). It contrasts cleanly with siblings like set_application_env_secret, list_application_env_secrets and apply_application_env_secrets, one of which it names outright.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is the right one: when the key should remain declared but the stored value must go away, and it notes deployments keep working until the next apply_application_env_secrets. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. how this differs from removing the key from the manifest, or that list_application_env_secrets should be consulted first), leaving some inference to the agent.

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