ecp_mysql_truncate_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the most critical fact—the operation is irreversible—and clarifies that all rows are affected. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as the need for explicit confirmation, potential auto-increment reset, or lack of rollback beyond the general irreversibility warning.

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 extremely concise: 'Delete all rows from a table. Irreversible.' Both sentences earn their place, and the core action and safety warning are front-loaded with no filler.

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 3-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate: it states the action and the irreversibility. It lacks usage guidance, parameter relationships, and sibling-tool differentiation, but the schema provides the confirmation requirement and parameter names, so an agent can still invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain db_name, table_name, or confirm. The phrase 'a table' weakly maps to table_name, but the critical confirm parameter receives no semantic context beyond the schema's const: true constraint.

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 all rows from a table.' This clearly conveys truncation semantics and distinguishes it from dropping a table. It does not explicitly differentiate from row-level delete tools, but 'all rows' provides enough clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_mysql_delete_row or ecp_mysql_drop_table. The description only warns about irreversibility and does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.

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