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

The description richly discloses consequences that annotations only hint at. It reveals that the app restarts, that the stored secret remains in the vault, that other apps are unaffected, and that the correct reporting semantics are 'removed from this app' rather than 'deleted.' This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Each of the four sentences earns its place: the first states the action, the second provides consequence and usage condition, the third clarifies persistence semantics, and the fourth gives reporting guidance. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key scoping 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-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description fully covers the operational context: side effects, persistence beyond the app, effect on sibling apps, and even expected result reporting. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well-documented: 'name' is the environment variable name and 'app_id' is the app id from list_apps. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with a precise action: 'Stop injecting a stored secret into one app.' This clearly differentiates from set_app_secret (which injects) and list_app_secrets (which enumerates). It also clarifies the exact scope ('one app') and distinguishes itself from deleting the stored value entirely.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'call this only when the app no longer needs that variable.' It also provides a when-not: the stored value should not be deleted via this tool, and deleting it is a separate dashboard action. This effectively routes the agent away from misuse.

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