delete_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses the destructive cascading nature by stating it deletes the schema together with all tables, columns, and relationships. This covers the primary behavioral trait, though it omits details like reversibility or permissions.

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 a single focused sentence followed by two simple parameter lines. There is no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with two parameters and an output schema present, the description effectively explains the scope of deletion and the parameter meanings. It does not discuss prerequisites or potential side effects beyond deletion, but for a delete tool this is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by including an Args section that defines each parameter: 'project_uuid: UUID проекта' and 'schema_uuid: UUID схемы'. This adds meaning beyond the bare type/title in the schema, though it does not give additional constraints or formats.

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 uses the specific verb 'Удалить' (delete) with the resource 'схему' (schema) and explicitly states it removes all associated tables, columns, and relationships. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_table or delete_relationship, which target narrower resources.

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 implies usage when a complete schema and its contents need to be removed, as it lists all elements that will be deleted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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