Destroy an environment and delete its disks. Everything inside it is gone for good. The golden image it was forked from is untouched.
Destroy an environment and delete its disks. Everything inside it is gone for good. The golden image it was forked from is untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | name of the environment |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log | No | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the environment is destroyed, its disks are deleted, everything inside is permanently gone, and the golden image remains unaffected. This is excellent transparency for a destructive operation.
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 short sentences deliver the core action first, then the critical irreversibility warning, then the scope clarification about the golden image. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, the irreversible consequences, and what is not affected, giving an agent all the behavioral context needed to call this tool safely.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, 'name', described as 'name of the environment'. The description does not add further parameter-level details, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents the only input.
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 tool destroys an environment and deletes its disks, a specific destructive action on a specific resource. It also distinguishes this from siblings like env_down, env_restore, and env_revert by emphasizing permanence and the golden image being untouched.
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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you intend to permanently destroy an environment. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as env_down or env_snapshot for non-destructive operations, but the irreversible wording strongly implies the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.