Permanently delete a test environment using its unique environment identifier. Use this to remove obsolete environments from TestMonitor; the action cannot be undone.
Delete an environment. Delete a test environment using its unique identifier. This action is permanent and cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the action is permanent and cannot be undone, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose whether the delete is soft or hard, what happens to associated data, or any required permissions. With annotations covering the behavioral profile, this is adequate.
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 sentences: 'Delete an environment. Delete a test environment using its unique identifier. This action is permanent and cannot be undone.' The first sentence is redundant with the second, and the core action is repeated. It is not optimally concise; the first sentence could be removed without loss.
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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more. It doesn't explain the parameter's expected format beyond 'unique identifier', doesn't mention any side effects on related resources, and doesn't clarify error conditions. While it states permanence, other critical details are missing.
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 0% for the single nested parameter testEnvironmentId. The description mentions 'using its unique identifier' but does not specify the parameter name, type, or format. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but here there is 1 param with no documentation; the description adds minimal value.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a test environment using its unique identifier.' This is clear and distinct from siblings like put_test_environment or get_test_environment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools, though the resource name makes it obvious.
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?
Implies usage by stating the action is permanent and cannot be undone, which signals caution. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like put_test_environment or when deletion is appropriate. No alternatives or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.