delete_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 destructiveness. It does add useful context about cleanup side effects ('clean connectors/module membership') beyond a simple delete. However, it doesn't disclose important behaviors like the constraint that stocks with connected flows require force=true (or the flows get detached), which is implied by the force parameter but not in the description. The added cleanup context earns a 3, not higher.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it includes the additional cleanup behavior succinctly. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 annotations (destructiveHint), full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a delete operation. It adds the cleanup behavior which is valuable. It could mention the force requirement, but that is already in the parameter schema. Overall, the description plus structured metadata is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100% – every parameter (name, force, model_id, workspace_id) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource as 'stock/flow/aux' (variable types). It also adds the distinguishing cleanup behavior ('clean connectors/module membership'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_model or delete_module. This is a clear and specific purpose statement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions like 'use this to permanently remove a variable' or mention when not to use it (e.g., when a stock has connected flows unless force is true). The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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