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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds context the annotations cannot: that all contained data is destroyed, that backups preserve recoverability for 7 days, and that the caller needs the databases.write scope. Those three facts—data loss, recovery window, and authorization—are exactly what an agent needs before doing something irreversible.

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 clauses; the destructive effect and data scope lead, followed by the recovery caveat, the confirmation instruction, and the required scope. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 2-parameter destructive delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, how long it can be recovered, the auth scope required, and the confirmation step. Nothing needed to call it 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%; both `name` (with its pattern) and `database` (with its id reference) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra format, ordering, or validation detail for either parameter.

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 uses a specific verb in capitals ("DROPS") and names the exact resource ("logical database", with its contents), so the agent can tell it apart from create_logical_database. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling delete_database, leaving the agent to work out "logical" vs. plain database scope.

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?

"Ask the user first" gives an explicit confirmation requirement before calling, which is real usage guidance for a destructive operation. However, there is no explicit when-not or pointer to a sibling alternative (for example, dropping a whole database instead of a logical one), so it falls short of a 5.

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