cf_unset_env

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it requires a restart/restage to take effect, what happens if the variable does not exist, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficient density.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a rich sibling set, the description omits the operational context that matters most: whether a restart/restage is needed for the change to apply and how it relates to cf_set_env/cf_get_env. The definition is barely complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so both appName and varName are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, scope, or side-effect detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Unset') and resource ('environment variable for an application'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related cf_set_env and cf_get_env siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative cf_set_env or cf_get_env. The agent gets no instruction about prerequisites (e.g. an app must exist/target be set) or when unsetting is appropriate versus overwriting with set.

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