drop_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write risk, high-risk label, reversibility via SHOW CREATE TABLE, undo recording, and dry_run preview. It does not discuss permissions or return values, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 front-loaded with a risk marker and a concise purpose statement. The explanatory paragraph and Args list are structured and focused, though the wording around capturing the index definition is slightly repetitive. Overall it is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic points: purpose, parameters, undo behavior, and dry-run. It could be more complete by indicating what the tool returns on success or on dry-run, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: table may be schema-qualified, name is the index to drop, dry_run previews instead of dropping, and target is a config-defined default. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: "Drop an index." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_index and the various analysis/index-health tools, and adds meaningful scope by noting reversibility and dry-run preview.

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 intended use is implied by the verb "Drop an index" and is supported by dry_run guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus alternatives such as redundant_indexes or unused_indexes. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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