Remove a table along with its columns, keys, indexes, and referenced dependencies. Use dry-run mode first to preview destructive changes.
Delete a table (and PowerDesigner cascades its columns/keys/indexes and attached references). Destructive: prefer dry_run first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| model_id | Yes | ||
| table_ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key behavioral trait: the operation is destructive and cascades to columns, keys, indexes, and attached references. It also recommends a dry_run, giving the agent a safe workflow. It does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but the most critical side effects are stated.
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 sentences that front-load the purpose and then add the safety note. Every phrase adds information; there is no 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?
The destructive/cascade behavior is well conveyedcommand, and the dry_run recommendation provides useful context. However, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description still leaves required parameter semantics and result behavior to inference, making it adequate but incomplete.
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%, so the description needed to explain model_id, table_ref, and dry_run; it only partially addresses dry_run by recommending it. The identity and format of table_ref are left completely unspecified, so an agent may not know what value to supply.
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?
Clearly states the action and resource ('Delete a table') and adds the cascading scope (columns, keys, indexes, and attached references), which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_column and delete_reference. The resource and effect are 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?
The phrase 'prefer dry_run first' gives explicit safety guidance for using this destructive tool, and the cascading note implies this is the correct tool when removing an entire table rather than a single column, key, or reference. It does not name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.