kinsta_environments_deleteDelete a Kinsta environment by ID. This action is irreversible and removes the environment entirely.
Delete an environment. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds explicit irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the generic annotation. This helps the agent treat the action with extra caution, though it does not describe side effects on dependent resources.
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 two short sentences with zero filler. The action and the critical warning are front-loaded, making it highly scannable for an agent. Every word 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 the simplicity of a one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, and annotations covering the destructive nature, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention what is permanently removed (e.g., files, database) or any prerequisites, but these are not critical for an agent to execute the call. The irreversibility warning is the key extra context.
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%, and the parameter env_id is already described as 'The environment ID to delete'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so it matches the baseline for high coverage. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.
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 action (delete) and the resource (environment) with a specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools like kinsta_sites_delete and kinsta_backups_delete by naming the resource type directly, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when deletion of an environment is appropriate, nor does it contrast with similar delete operations (e.g., site, backup, domain). The agent must infer usage solely from the resource name, which is a gap for a destructive action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.