Delete an environment variable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate destruction. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the dry_run option (non-destructive way to preview) and the dependency on restart/redeploy for the change to take effect. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the most important modifiers (is_preview, dry_run, restart requirement) are given in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and a destructive operation with annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential operational details: deletion by key, preview selection, dry-run, and post-action restart. It does not explain error handling (e.g., key not found) but that's not strictly required for a delete operation. Minor gap, so a 4.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The tool description adds meaningful usage context for dry_run ('Use dry_run to check first') and clarifies the is_preview parameter specifically for applications. This goes slightly beyond the schema's basic descriptions, earning a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('environment variable') with scope ('from an application or service, by key'). It also mentions the is_preview distinction for applications, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_envs and list_envs. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 actionable guidance: use dry_run to check first and notes that changes take effect after a restart/redeploy. It also clarifies that is_preview applies only to applications. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. Lacks an explicit alternative comparison, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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