ecp_postgres_delete_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the operation is 'Irreversible,' which is a critical safety trait for a destructive operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, or what happens if the row does not exist, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and a critical warning. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 6 required parameters, including a confirm flag and a nested primary_key object, with no output schema. The description fails to explain the confirm parameter's requirement (it must be true) or the structure of primary_key. It also omits any return value or error behavior, making the tool incomplete for correct invocation without additional external knowledge.

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. It adds meaning only for 'primary_key' by stating the row is identified by it, but it does not explain the structure of the primary_key object or the purpose of the required 'confirm' parameter. The remaining parameters (db_name, table_name, db_username, password) are self-explanatory from their names, but the description provides no additional detail, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 operation: 'Delete a row from a table, identified by primary_key.' It specifies the resource (a row), the identification method (primary key), and the verb (delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that drop tables or truncate data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_postgres_drop_table or ecp_postgres_truncate_table. It implies use for single-row deletion but provides no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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