Gp Delete Field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the read-back verification step and the requirement of a destructive gate and schema lock before deletion, which is genuinely useful context beyond the 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and verification, then the preconditions. No filler, though the phrasing is compressed enough that some clauses (e.g., 方案锁) require interpretation.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the definition covers the gating, locking and verification behaviors but omits the confirmation-match semantics and failure/abort conditions. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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% with four undocumented parameters, so the description must compensate. It does hint at the target path (in_table) and the exact field-list echo (the confirm_* parameters), effectively explaining the confirmation-pair pattern, but it gives no format, type, or matching-rule detail, leaving half the semantics to inference.

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 names a specific verb (删除/delete) and resource (精确字段集合/exact field set) plus the read-back verification behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling field tools like gp_add_field or gp_alter_field. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It implies the preconditions for use — destructive gating, schema lock, target path and field echo — which tells the agent what must be satisfied, but it never states when this tool should be chosen over gp_alter_field (which can also drop fields) or the workspace edit tools. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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