Delete an environment

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior — the deletion is total, the default environment is protected under a stated condition, and API-key credentials are refused outright. It does not say what happens to dependent objects (runs, assets) inside the environment, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then auth gating. Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact; nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema and destructive annotations already signaling risk, the description covers the critical call-time constraints (auth mode, default-environment protection). The only omission is the return/effect surface after deletion, which is minor for a delete tool.

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 50%, and the description contributes nothing about parameters. environment_id is a self-evident UUID target, and X-Orchestra-Account-Id is already richly documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Delete an environment entirely") with an unmistakable destructive scope. An agent can distinguish it from update_environment, get_environment, and list_environments without inspecting any 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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions (default environment cannot be deleted while others exist) and a hard auth precondition (OAuth only; refused with an API key). It does not name a sibling alternative, but the failure conditions it documents are exactly what routes an agent correctly.

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