ecp_mssql_delete_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the deletion is irreversible, which is the most important safety trait. However, it does not explain how far the destruction extends, whether confirmation is intentionally guarded, or what permissions are needed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the important irreversible warning. No word is wasted and the structure is easy to scan.

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, irreversible operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. An agent is not told about the confirm requirement, the full scope of data loss, or any prerequisite backup/restore steps, making the tool riskily underspecified.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only weakly implies that db_name is the database being deleted, and 'Irreversible' hints at why confirm must be true, but it never actually explains either parameter. This is minimal added value.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: deleting an MSSQL database. This cleanly distinguishes it from related siblings like ecp_mssql_drop_table and ecp_mssql_truncate_table, even without explicitly naming them. The additional 'Irreversible' clarifies the destructive scope.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not route the agent to safer alternatives such as truncate_table, drop_table, or taking a backup first. Using the tool must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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