db_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does flag that deletion only happens when confirm=true, which is an important safeguard beyond the schema's default. However, it does not mention irreversibility, cascade behavior, transaction effects, or what happens if where_sql is empty, so the disclosure is only partially complete.

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: two short sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the critical safety requirement is stated immediately after. No filler or redundancy exists.

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 six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description omits crucial context: the table parameter is not mentioned, params_json and session_name are unexplained, and there is no warning about empty where_sql. The output schema covers return values, so that part is not needed, but the overall guidance is too thin for safe and correct 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning for where_sql and confirm, but table, schema, params_json, and session_name remain unexplained. Given the large number of undocumented parameters, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 action and target: 'Delete rows matching where_sql' – a specific verb with a clear resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like db_execute or db_update, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself, but the delete-vs-query/update/insert distinction is evident from the wording.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use db_delete versus alternatives such as db_execute, db_update, or db_query. The only usage note, 'confirm=true is required,' is a safety precondition, not a use-case justification. An agent gets no help deciding between this and sibling database tools.

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