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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the scheduled restart side effect, the refusal behavior that names the holder, that unset names are reported without failing, and that inherited org variables are untouched. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information and the core action is front-loaded, with no filler. The text is dense in a single block, but no sentence is expendable, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects (restart), failure semantics (unset name reported, not fatal), partial-failure conditions, and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the refusal response.

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 the schema already documents name, names, and the org_name default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove environment variables set on an app or agent.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like set_env_vars and list_env_vars, and the added restart side effect pins down the exact operation.

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?

Explicitly states when the call is refused (variable held by a connector, channel, or resource set) and names the alternatives that free each holder (destroy_channel, detach_resource). It also states the auth prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account') and the inheritance boundary, leaving nothing to inference.

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