delete_database

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: permanence and the required environment gates (WISP_ALLOW_DATABASES and WISP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE). It does not say whether the deletion is immediate or what happens to related backups/data, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive permanence and the usage restriction front-loaded, followed by the permission prerequisites. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers permanence, the usage trigger, and the required permission flags, which is enough for correct invocation. Only the downstream consequences (backups, dependent services) are left unstated.

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%, including the note that database_id comes from list_databases and that server_id falls back to WISP_SERVER_ID. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a database allocation by ID'), which is far more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like delete_file or delete_backup, but the resource noun makes misselection unlikely.

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?

'Use only for an explicit deletion request' gives a clear, actionable when-to-use constraint with an implicit exclusion for speculative or bulk cleanup. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or escalation path, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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