ecp_postgres_drop_table

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

The description discloses irreversibility, a critical behavioral trait. However, it omits other important details: the need for the confirm parameter (schema const true), cascading effects on dependent objects, permission requirements, and behavior if the table doesn't exist. With no annotations provided, these gaps leave the agent underinformed about consequences.

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 very brief, which is efficient, but it omits essential information about parameters and usage. While the action is front-loaded, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary context for an AI agent. It is not appropriately sized for a destructive tool with multiple required inputs.

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 operation with three required parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the confirmation mechanism, the role of each parameter, and the broader consequences. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional inference or 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?

The description provides zero information about the three parameters (db_name, table_name, confirm). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters mean or why the confirm flag is required. The schema only lists types, not semantics.

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 action ('Drop (delete) a table entirely') and the resource being operated on. It emphasizes irreversibility, distinguishing it from truncate operations. Though it doesn't name sibling tools, the 'postgres' prefix in the tool name disambiguates from other database drop_table tools.

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 like truncate_table. There is no mention of scenarios where dropping is appropriate, prerequisites, or situations to avoid. The only hint is 'Irreversible,' which implies caution but does not offer explicit decision criteria.

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