Delete a single row from a Microsoft SQL Server table by its primary key value. Use this to remove specific records after confirming the action, as the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone.
Delete a row from a table, identified by primary_key. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | ||
| db_name | Yes | ||
| password | Yes | ||
| table_name | Yes | ||
| db_username | Yes | ||
| primary_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the most important behavior by stating 'Irreversible,' which is valuable for a destructive operation. However, it does not mention side effects, foreign-key behavior, permission requirements, or whether the confirmation parameter is mandatory in practice.
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 short and front-loaded, with both sentences earning their place: one states the action, the other the key risk. It is appropriately terse but borders on under-specification for a destructive, six-parameter operation.
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 no annotations, no output schema, zero parameter documentation, and a nested primary_key parameter, the description is not complete enough. An agent would be uncertain about the exact structure of primary_key, the semantics of confirm, and preconditions such as permissions or table constraints before invoking this destructive tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the role of primary_key. The meaning of confirm as a mandatory true sentinel is left entirely to schema inference, and the nested primary_key object format is not described. The other parameters are identifiable by name but receive no semantic detail.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a row from a table, identified by primary_key.' This clearly conveys row-level deletion and distinguishes it from table-level siblings like drop_table or truncate_table. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_row, truncate_table, drop_table, or the equivalent delete_row tools for other database engines. The description implies the obvious use case but provides no exclusions, preconditions, or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.