delete_metabase_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a database connection and returns a confirmation, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on dependent dashboards/cards), or error handling. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the others document parameters and return type. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args/Returns into a single sentence, but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context like safety warnings or dependencies. For a delete tool, more detail on consequences would improve completeness, but the output schema helps mitigate gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates 'database_id' is an integer, but the description clarifies it's 'ID of the database to delete', specifying its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could note format constraints (e.g., where to find the ID).

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a database connection from Metabase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_metabase_card' or 'delete_metabase_dashboard' which target different resources. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database), exclusions (e.g., not for read-only operations), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_metabase_databases' for listing databases. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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