delete_index

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 advises dry_run, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose the irreversible nature in detail, what happens to dependent objects, or the exact effect of dry_run. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose ('Delete an index') and immediately follows with a critical safety note ('Destructive: prefer dry_run first'). There is no redundant wording, and every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It does not mention success/failure responses, side effects on related objects, prerequisites (e.g., model must be open), or recovery options. The dry_run tip is a start, but it leaves many gaps for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 adds no explanation for any of the four parameters. While the parameter names (model_id, table_ref, index_ref, dry_run) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their roles, formats, or relationships. The tool relies entirely on the schema, which is insufficient given the lack of description-level 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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'index', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_column, delete_table, and delete_reference. The addition of 'Destructive: prefer dry_run first' further clarifies the operation's nature. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides a clear usage directive to prefer dry_run first, which is helpful for safe execution. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_index or rollback_model) or any prerequisites like needing an open model. The guidance is limited to a safety tip rather than full usage context.

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