indexeddb_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly identifies the destructive action ('Delete an IndexedDB database') and the effect on SPA state, and it scopes the deletion to the current origin. It does not mention irreversibility, error handling, or what happens to open connections, but the deletion scope is at least explicit.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded and the parenthetical adds valuable context without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the operation, the scope, and the effect on SPA state. It could optionally mention irreversibility or that the database name should be discovered via indexeddb_list, but those are not critical for a simple, self-descriptive delete operation.

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 one required string 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that 'name' refers to the database name for the current origin, which is a basic clarification. However, it does not explain how to obtain valid names (e.g., via indexeddb_list) or any constraints such as case-sensitivity or nonexistent database behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('IndexedDB database'), and scope ('by name for the current origin'). The parenthetical clarifies the purpose by explaining the consequence ('clears SPA state that survives a cookie wipe'). This distinguishes it from storage-clearing siblings like localstorage_clear or sessionstorage_clear.

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 gives contextual use-case information ('clears SPA state that survives a cookie wipe') and the scope ('current origin'), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as cookie_delete, localstorage_clear, or indexeddb_list for resource identification. When to use it is implied rather than directly stated.

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