env_delete_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation and discloses almost nothing: not whether deletion is permanent, whether the config is persisted automatically, or whether a missing key errors or is a no-op. It confirms a write occurs but adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 sentence, scope front-loaded after the verb, zero filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient — an agent can call it. But as an unannotated destructive operation it should say more about irreversibility and missing-key behavior.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ("Variable name to delete"), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about key format, case-sensitivity, or qualification, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully documented single param.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete a variable") scoped to "the active environment configuration", which distinguishes it from env_delete (whole environment) and env_configure. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — no statement of when to prefer this over env_delete/env_set_variable, no prerequisites, and no note about deleting a non-existent key. An agent can guess the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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