drop_database

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

Although annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds irreversibility, the mandatory confirm=true requirement, and a user-confirmation workflow. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotation and there is no contradiction.

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, front-loaded clauses convey the core action, irreversibility, and confirmation prerequisite without wasted words. Structure is efficient and appropriate for a simple destructive tool.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers the key safety information: irreversibility and required confirmation. It does not explicitly document the name parameter or required privileges, which is a minor gap.

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 50%. The confirm parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Debe ser true', so the description's 'requiere confirm=true' is largely redundant. The name parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not add meaning about what 'name' identifies.

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?

States a specific verb ('ELIMINA') and resource ('una base de datos completa'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling operations like drop_table or delete_records by its database-wide scope. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Provides critical usage context: the operation is irreversible, requires confirm=true, and should be preceded by asking the user for confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the preconditions for safe use are clear.

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