unset_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error handling, reversibility, or any requirements (e.g., permissions). The agent has no information about what happens if the variable doesn't exist or how success is indicated.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, making it maximally concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action without any filler, which is optimal for quick comprehension, though this brevity sacrifices essential detail.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal and incomplete. It does not specify expected behavior on missing variables, success responses, or relationship to other variable management tools, making it insufficient for an agent to call correctly without additional inference.

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 description does not explain the 'name' parameter, which lacks a schema description. While the 'project' parameter has a schema description, the tool description adds no meaning for either parameter. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is incomplete for the required 'name' field.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('a global variable'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from related tools like set_variable and get_variables, though it does not explicitly contrast with remove_state_var, which handles a different variable type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_state_var or set_variable. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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