delete_records

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the non-empty `where` guard rail, which is real behavioral context, but omits irreversibility, affected-row reporting, and permission requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mandatory-parameter constraint is placed where it matters most. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a destructive 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?

For a destructive, non-transactional DB mutation with no output schema, the description says nothing about irreversibility, returned affected-row count, or error conditions. The annotations cover only the destructive flag, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke this.

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 coverage is 67%: `where` and `database` are well documented in the schema, `table` is not. The description reinforces that `where` is required and cannot be empty, adding a constraint not stated in the schema, which justifies the baseline 3 rather than lower.

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?

Names a specific verb (borra) and resource (registros) and adds the discriminating condition that the `where` clause is mandatory. It is clearly distinct from select_records/update_records in intent, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 note that `where` is obligatory and non-empty is a safety-oriented usage constraint that steers the agent away from unscoped deletion. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to update_records or execute_sql, and no mention of prerequisites or transaction handling.

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