delete_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources, or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, success/failure responses, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_environment' for verification). For a tool that permanently removes resources, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'environmentId' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or validation rules). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete an environment' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (environment), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_api', 'delete_api_version', or 'delete_schema_file', all of which perform deletion operations on different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an environment ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_environment' to verify existence first. With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list, the absence of usage context is a significant gap.

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