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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing exactly what is deleted (registration, queued deltas, feed) and what is preserved (external replicas, entity state, schema flags by default). It explains the side effects of the optional flags and their irreversibility, and even warns to obtain approval. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but each sentence contributes unique information: action, requirements, side effects, options, and a doc link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically organized, though slightly dense.

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 three parameters, the description covers prerequisites, exact side effects, default behavior, and irreversible options. It also references documentation for deeper details. Combined with the output schema (not shown but present), the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical nuance: it explains that clear_database_model implies delete_entity_state, and clarifies the meaning of 'schemas left with no registration'. This is not present in the schema and is essential for correct parameter usage.

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 action ('Delete a database registration and its queued deltas') with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_schema or delete_attachment. It also names prerequisites (owner, sync-enabled plan) which further clarifies its role.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites (owner, sync-enabled plan, no LLM call) and what remains untouched (external replica tables). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The note about obtaining approval for irreversible teardown options is useful guidance.

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