delete_variable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-safety are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express: the deletion scope is limited to agent-set variables, and user-defined window variables are out of reach. Return behavior and failure mode (nonexistent name) are left implicit, keeping this at 4.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The scoping rule that matters most (agent-set only) is front-loaded, and the exclusion follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The description supplies the one non-obvious constraint an agent needs before calling. Minor gap: it does not say what happens when the name does not exist or matches a saved request, which the sibling set makes a real risk.

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 single `name` parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or disambiguation detail for `name`. Notably, the schema says the name may refer to 'a saved request,' which is confusing given the sibling delete_saved_request, and the description does not resolve that ambiguity — preventing a higher score.

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 (remove a variable) and immediately scopes it: only variables an agent set via set_variable. This distinguishes it from delete_saved_request and from set_variable's inverse operation, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states a when-not: 'Variables the user defined in the window can only be removed there,' which prevents a mis-call. It also names set_variable as the counterpart operation. It stops short of a full when-to-use statement (e.g., confirming the agent should delete its own scratch variables when done), so 4 rather than 5.

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