Remove a table's primary key in PowerDesigner models. Preview with dry run first to avoid unintended changes.
Remove the primary key from a table. 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 must carry behavioral disclosure; it labels the operation 'Destructive' and recommends dry_run, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to dependent objects, whether the change is reversible, or what response/errors to expect, so some burden remains unmet.
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 with no filler; the destructive warning is front-loaded and the dry_run guidance is actionable. Every word 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 three-parameter schema mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it warns and suggests dry_run, but doesn't describe the effect on the model or the expected result. It is adequate for a straightforward operation, yet missing details an agent may need for safe use.
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 should compensate. It only gestures at dry_run ('prefer dry_run first') and does not explain model_id or table_ref, leaving their formats and required semantics to inference. The self-explanatory names and schema titles carry most of the weight.
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?
Description states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('primary key from a table'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_primary_key and set_primary_key.
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?
It provides explicit execution guidance: 'Destructive: prefer dry_run first.' This tells the agent to use the dry_run flag before committing. It doesn't explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no genuine alternative exists for removing a primary key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.