delete_data_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects, such as whether the underlying data source is deleted, or dependencies like existing tables that may be affected. The lack of such disclosure is a significant gap for a delete operation.

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 and well-structured: a single clear purpose statement followed by an Args section. There is no redundancy or unnecessary verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks important contextual details about the operation's impact. For a delete tool, it should clarify what happens to the data source, whether the action is reversible, and any prerequisites or constraints. The current description is minimal and leaves critical questions unanswered.

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 only parameter, project_uuid, is described as "UUID проекта," which merely repeats the schema's property title and type. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no new meaning beyond what is already present in the schema field.

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 tool deletes the binding between a project and a data source agent ("Удалить привязку проекта к агенту-источнику данных"). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (delete_project, delete_schema) by targeting the data source binding specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing the operation, leaving the agent without direction on when this tool is appropriate.

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