Delete environment

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

Annotations supply only idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: runs lose their environment attribution, history filtering by that environment breaks, the action is irreversible, and the tool will ask the user to confirm first. It also gives a cost estimate (one API call, ~0.4s), which is uncommon and useful.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by consequences, then cost. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, that confirmation is requested, and the operational cost. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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%, so both parameters (id, code) are already documented with format constraints in the schema. The description only restates that the call is keyed by project code and ID, adding no syntax or edge-case detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the two lookup keys: 'Delete an environment by project code and ID.' Among siblings it cleanly separates from qase_environment_upsert and from the many other *_delete tools tied to different resources.

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 makes the stakes of deleting clear (attribution loss, irreversibility) and notes a confirmation prompt, which implicitly signals caution. However, it never states when to use this versus qase_environment_upsert (i.e., to modify instead of remove), so the routing guidance is only implied.

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