delete_table

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete' (destructive), but lacks details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, potential cascading effects, or what the TableDeleted return object contains (though output schema exists).

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 has a clear structure (purpose, args, returns), but the first two sentences are repetitive ('Delete a specified table...' and 'Delete a table...'). Could be trimmed to one sentence.

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?

Given 2 required parameters and output schema, the description is borderline adequate. It lacks context about the destructive nature, comparison to sibling tools (e.g., delete_branch, revert_table), and any usage prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4, but the description adds minimal semantic value: 'table' is described as 'Name of the table to delete' and 'branch' with a format constraint. It does not explain the role of 'branch' or how to obtain a valid branch name.

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 identifies the action ('delete') and resource ('table'), and the context signals show sibling tools like delete_branch and delete_namespace, so this tool is distinct. However, the first two sentences are redundant, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., revert_table, delete_branch). No mention of prerequisites or implications, leaving the agent without decision support.

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