drop_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the irreversible nature and complete data loss ('This action is irreversible — all data in the table will be lost'), which is critical for a destructive operation. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not detail other side effects like cascading deletes or error conditions, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 concise and front-loads the primary purpose, followed by usage context, a warning, and then parameter/return details. However, the 'Args' section contains a naming mismatch ('table_name_input' vs 'table_name') that detracts from clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavioral context (irreversibility, data loss), the return type (success or error), and the use case. It does not discuss edge cases like table non-existence or permission requirements, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient. A score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the single parameter (table_name) with a clear description. The tool description's 'Args' section introduces 'table_name_input' instead of the schema's 'table_name', which is a minor inconsistency. It adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool 'permanently deletes (drops) a table from the SQLite database', using a specific verb and resource. It also explains the use case ('free up space or remove tables that are no longer needed'), which distinguishes it from the many read-oriented sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('free up space or remove tables that are no longer needed'), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention when not to use it. This is a clear context without exclusions, fitting the '4' level.

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