Delete API Environment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond this by adding that the deletion is a 'soft-delete', that a content-bound confirmation_text is required, and that read-only policies block the action. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in the annotations, though it doesn't discuss reversibility or side effects.

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 two sentences long, immediately states the primary action, and includes policy caveats without fluff. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 operation with 5 parameters, the description covers the core delete behavior and key policy constraints but omits any mention of return values (output schema exists), the purpose of the 'confirm' flag, or what happens to associated resources. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an operation of this complexity.

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 0% and the description only hints at 'confirmation_text' without explaining the relationship between the two similar parameters 'confirmationText' and 'confirmation_text', nor the roles of 'confirm' or 'workspaceId'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 states 'Soft-deletes an API environment through the command bus,' clearly identifying the verb (delete), resource (API environment), and mechanism (soft-delete, command bus). It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by naming the specific resource type and it is not tautological.

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 provides useful usage context by mentioning the requirement for 'content-bound confirmation_text' and that 'read-only policy blocks deletion.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'when not to use', the policy conditions offer clear guidance for when deletion is allowed, which is effectively usage direction for a guarded operation.

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