Delete Workspace Variable

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying the operation is a 'soft-delete' rather than a hard delete. It also reveals a 'content-bound confirmation handshake' required by guarded policy, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the critical confirmation requirement. It is well-sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, soft-delete behavior, and confirmation policy, but important gaps remain: the exact confirmation parameter requirements are ambiguous, and the 0% schema coverage means the description needed to explain parameter roles more thoroughly. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but parameter clarity is still incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not sufficiently compensate. It hints at the confirmation handshake but does not clarify the roles of 'confirm', 'confirmationText', 'confirmation_text', or 'workspaceId'. The presence of two similarly named confirmation fields without disambiguation is particularly problematic.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-deletes one workspace-global variable.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like create_variable, update_variable, and replace_variables. The scope ('workspace-global') and soft-delete semantics add precision.

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 implies usage when a workspace-global variable should be deleted, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives or when not to. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context mostly inferred.

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