remove_envDeletes an environment variable from an Antideploy app configuration; changes apply on the next redeploy, and the removed value cannot be shown again.
Remove one variable. The running app keeps it until the next deploy; redeploy applies it. A removed value cannot be shown again, only set again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The variable's name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the `destructiveHint: true` annotation, the description discloses the delayed effect (the app keeps the value until the next deploy) and the irreversibility of visibility (a removed value cannot be shown again, only set again). These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs for a destructive mutation.
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?
Three compact sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the deployment consequence and irreversibility follow in logical order.
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?
The description is complete for a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema: it states the action, the delayed effect, the remedy (`redeploy`), and the loss of visibility. Nothing further is required for an agent to 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single `key` parameter, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description reinforces that exactly one variable is removed but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one variable.' It clearly distinguishes removal from setting or listing variables, and it references the related `redeploy` tool for applying the change.
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 explains that the running app keeps the variable until the next deploy and that `redeploy` applies the removal. That is useful contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly say when to use `remove_env` instead of alternatives such as `set_env` or `list_env`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.