vercel_delete_env

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a destructive mutation. It says 'Delete' but does not state that deletion is irreversible, what permissions or scope (team/project) are required, or what happens on success/failure. Only the bare mutation verb is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the identifier source is given inline rather than buried after unrelated detail.

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, unannotated tool with 7 parameters, no required fields, duplicate aliases, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the safety profile, auth expectations, and param aliasing pitfalls that an agent needs to call this 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 only 43% across 7 parameters, and the description only addresses env id. It never explains the envId/env_id, teamId/team_id, and projectId/project_id alias pairs, nor when api_key or team/project scoping is needed — a real risk since an agent could pass both alias forms or omit required scoping context.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Vercel environment variable') and identifies the key handle ('its env id'), which clearly separates it from the read-side vercel_get_env. It does not explicitly distinguish from vercel_create_env, the other obvious sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition ('get ids from vercel_get_env'), telling the agent where the required identifier comes from. It stops short of naming when not to use the tool or what alternative applies, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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