df_delete_fact_table

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'PERMANENTLY DELETES DATA IN DATAFORGE' (reinforcing irreversibility) and the rejection condition for active relationships, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences) and front-loads the most important warning about permanent deletion. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 operation with no output schema, the description provides essential context: the permanence, the rejection condition, and the resource type. It does not explain the full impact on related data (beyond the relationship rejection), but this is sufficiently implied. The required parameters are straightforward, and annotations cover safety. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67% (project_id and version_id are described, fact_table_id is not). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but fact_table_id is self-explanatory given the tool name. Since coverage is moderate and the missing parameter is obvious, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Delete a fact table') and emphasizes the permanent destructive nature, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like df_delete_fact (which deletes individual facts) and df_delete_relationship. The agent can immediately identify the target action.

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 provides a critical usage constraint ('Rejected while it has active relationships'), telling the agent when the operation will fail. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use this vs. deleting individual facts or relationships. The guidance is present but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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