delete env tool

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description substantially enriches this with the hard-delete nature ('Hard delete'), the audit event side effect, the fineTuning feature-flag gate producing 404, the OWNER/ADMIN 403 condition, and the workspace-scoped 404 for unknown ids. The described 404-on-missing behavior is consistent with the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, endpoint and API-key scope, return shape, feature-flag gate, permission requirement, not-found case, and side effect. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement and uses compact parentheticals and labeled fields to preserve readability.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, nothing critical is missing: the return value is stated ({ ok: true }), all expected error states (404 feature off, 403 permissions, 404 not found) are enumerated, auth scope and side effects are described, and the schema covers the only parameter. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and anticipate failures.

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 schema's id field already documents its source (GET /v1/env/tools) and workspace constraint, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds modest value by tying an out-of-workspace id to the 404 behavior, but it does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revokes a declared agent tool registration (consent withdrawal) so training environments can no longer call that endpoint.' This precisely distinguishes the tool from its siblings, particularly register_env_tool and list_env_tools, by stating the action, the resource affected, and the consequence. Including the DELETE endpoint reinforces the scope.

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 purpose statement implies when to use it (consent withdrawal for a previously registered agent tool), and the prerequisites are spelled out: fineTuning feature flag must be on, and an OWNER/ADMIN minting user is required. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions; given siblings like register_env_tool, explicit routing would have been valuable.

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