db_delete

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose safety and effects. 'Drop a database' signals destruction and 'confirm: Required' hints at a confirmation safeguard, but it does not state irreversibility, impact on associated users/data, or what a successful response looks like. It also fails to reconcile 'confirm: Required' with the schema, which marks confirm optional with default false.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler, which is appropriate for a simple operation. However, the Args section is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no meaningful parameter documentation, and 0% schema description coverage, the tool's destructive semantics and confirmation contract are under-explained. For a two-parameter operation that deletes a database, an agent still lacks enough context to invoke it safely and correctly. The output schema helps but does not cover the missing behavioral context.

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, but it only restates the property titles: 'Name' for database and 'Required' for confirm. It does not explain that confirm should be true, what database name format is expected, or that the schema considers confirm optional. This adds minimal meaning beyond the structural schema fields.

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 opens with a concrete verb ('Drop') and resource ('a database'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is distinguishable from sibling 'db_delete_user' even though no sibling is named, because the target is the database itself.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use db_delete versus related database tools, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only contextual note, 'confirm: Required,' functions as a parameter instruction rather than usage guidance and conflicts with the schema.

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