Permanently removes an environment profile from a project workspace. Confirm the deletion by supplying the exact environment name, preventing accidental removal of the wrong profile.
Delete an environment profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm deletion | |
| environmentId | Yes | Database ID of the environment to delete | |
| expectedEnvironmentName | Yes | Must exactly match the environment name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about whether variables within the environment are removed, whether it can be undone, or what errors occur on name mismatch.
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?
One clean sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of the usage and consequence information an agent needs.
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?
A destructive tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, so the essentials are present. It still leaves the blast radius (do environment variables and allowlists go with it?) and post-deletion state unstated, which matters for a destructive operation.
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%; all three parameters, including the name-matching guard and the confirm flag, are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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?
Specific verb (delete) plus resource (environment profile), and 'profile' distinguishes it from the sibling env_delete_variable, which removes a single variable rather than the whole environment. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 no conditions for when to use this rather than env_delete_variable, env_switch, or env_rename, and no prerequisites or caveats. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.