delete_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required confirmation flag, that removal leaves a reversible audit snapshot, and that the audit history itself contains retained sensitive data. Gaps remain on failure behavior (does confirm=false error or no-op?) and on permissions, but the destructive-behavior profile is substantially covered.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the destructive verb and the guard condition leading. The two audit lines ('preserving its reversible audit snapshot' and 'Audit history retains deleted sensitive data') are slightly redundant and could be merged, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the confirm requirement is stated. Still, for a destructive tool with zero annotations, the description omits permission requirements and the exact outcome when confirm is false, leaving an agent without a complete behavioral picture.

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 0% and none of the three parameters has a description, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's required value, which is the most important semantic, but adds nothing about table or id (acceptable given obvious names) and does not state the alternative value's effect.

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 and resource ('DELETE: remove a record') and names the guard mechanism, making it clearly distinct from insert_row/update_row siblings. It does not call out the table scoping that distinguishes it from a bulk delete, but the purpose is 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?

Gives one hard precondition ('only with confirm=true') and one procedural instruction ('Back up first'), which is real usage guidance. However, it offers no explicit contrast with siblings like get_history or its reverse (update_row), and it does not say what happens when confirm is omitted or false, so the agent must infer the error path.

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