Remove Environment Variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'MERGES into the environment — all other variables are preserved.' This goes beyond the schema by clarifying that removal does not replace the entire environment. It also notes 'single variable,' setting expectations for scope. However, it does not cover error handling or prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist), which could be relevant.

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 two sentences, directly front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence provides essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple removal tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the scope (single variable), and the critical side effect (preserving other variables). It does not explain return values or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does relate to parameters indirectly (e.g., 'single variable' maps to 'name'), but that is behavioral context, not parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Remove a single variable from an existing Bruno environment.' It uses a specific verb ('remove'), identifies the resource ('variable'), and specifies the scope ('single' and 'existing environment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_environment_variable (which adds/updates) and update_environment (which modifies environment settings).

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 implies when to use the tool (to remove a variable) and includes a limitation ('single variable'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings, though explicit exclusions would improve it.

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