delete_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as destructive and recommends dry_run first, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or consequences of deleting a column that is in use, so the disclosure is minimal but present.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded ('Delete a column from a table') and the destructive warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is thin. It gives the core purpose and a dry-run tip, but omits details about required arguments (other than the schema), what happens on execution, failure modes, or how to interpret the result. An agent would still face uncertainty about side effects and correct usage beyond the basic operation.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters (model_id, table_ref, column_ref, dry_run) beyond their names. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, constraints, or format details. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 states 'Delete a column from a table' – a specific verb, resource, and object. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_column, rename_column, update_column, and delete_table. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 advises 'Destructive: prefer dry_run first,' which gives a clear safety guideline for invocation. It suggests using dry_run as a precaution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. This is useful guidance but lacks comparative routing.

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