claude-database-tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('drops') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, whether it cascades to dependent objects, or what happens on success/failure. For a high-risk operation like dropping a database table, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no complex behavioral nuances to explain. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 this is a destructive database operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'drops' entails (permanent deletion?), what happens to dependent objects, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. For such a high-stakes tool, more contextual information is warranted.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'tableName' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format requirements, case sensitivity, or examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('drops') and resource ('a table from the MSSQL Database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_data' (which removes rows) and 'create_table' (which creates tables). However, it doesn't specify whether this is a permanent deletion or if it can be undone, which prevents a perfect score.

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 admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for temporary removal), or direct alternatives like 'delete_data' for removing rows instead of entire tables. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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