Delete group CI/CD variable

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

Annotations already convey destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a useful behavioral detail — the tool will not return the former variable value — which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not mention scope-dependent behavior, irreversibility beyond what annotations imply, or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. Every word adds value: it states what is deleted and the key behavioral caveat about the return value.

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 tool with three parameters, an optional environment-scope filter, and low parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain how filter_environment_scope interacts with deletion, what happens if it is omitted, or caution users to retrieve the value before deletion. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the tool still lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 only 33%, with only 'group' described. The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'key' and 'filter_environment_scope' parameters, nor does it explain what 'key' identifies or how the optional environment scope affects deletion. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a group CI/CD variable.' It clearly identifies the target (group-level CI/CD variable) and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like delete_project_ci_variable. The added phrase 'without returning its former value' further sharpens the operation's scope and outcome.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_group_ci_variable, update_group_ci_variable, or delete_project_ci_variable. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'if you need the value, fetch it first' caveat are provided.

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