delete_variable

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 states the action is deletion, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns any confirmation. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence in Japanese ('変数を削除します'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 4 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, error conditions, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it 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%, with all four parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId, variableId) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '変数を削除します' (Deletes a variable) clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (variable), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_tag' or 'delete_trigger' beyond the resource name, and it lacks specificity about what kind of variable (e.g., in what context or system).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_variable' or 'update_variable'. The description is standalone without context.

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