ecp_mysql_drop_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the single most critical trait — 'Irreversible' — which is genuine, valuable context for a destructive operation. However, it omits other important behavioral details: cascade effects on dependent objects (views, triggers, foreign keys), failure behavior if the table doesn't exist, and the confirm=true safety gate semantics. The key risk is disclosed but the picture is incomplete.

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, fully front-loaded with the action, and zero filler. 'Irreversible' is a single-word sentence that earns its place by flagging the primary risk. This is a model of efficient writing.

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 a 0%-coverage schema, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know the relationship to ecp_mysql_truncate_table (the closest sibling and most likely source of error), the role of the confirm parameter, and the scope of destruction. Only the core action and irreversibility are conveyed, leaving the agent under-equipped for safe invocation.

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 mentions no parameters at all. db_name and table_name are self-evident from their names, but the confirm parameter — a boolean constrained to true that functions as a safety confirmation — is entirely unexplained. The agent must guess the relationship between 'confirm' and the drop operation, which is a meaningful gap at 0% coverage.

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 ('Drop') and resource ('a table entirely'), clearly stating the operation. The qualifier 'entirely' helps signal this removes the whole table rather than just its contents, which weakly differentiates it from ecp_mysql_truncate_table. However, it doesn't explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes ecp_mysql_truncate_table (clears data, keeps structure), ecp_mysql_delete_database, and ecp_postgres_drop_table/ecp_mssql_drop_table, but the description never explains which operation fits which situation. An agent must infer the decision boundary entirely from tool names.

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