delete_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the deletion cascades to columns and relationships, but does not mention permanence, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on branches/commits. For a destructive operation, this lacks critical safety and side-effect information.

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 main description is a concise single sentence that front-loads the core action. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but is concise and organized. No unnecessary filler is present.

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 no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, branch/commit implications, or what happens to related data beyond columns and relationships. The presence of an output schema does not cover these operational concerns, leaving gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 no descriptions for parameters, so the description's Args block adds some meaning (e.g., schema_uuid is UUID of schema, branch_name defaults to main). However, this largely restates the property names and types, and doesn't explain formats or constraints beyond the schema defaults. It adds minimal value but partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 clear action: 'Удалить таблицу вместе с колонками и связями' (Delete the table along with its columns and relationships), specifying the resource (table) and the scope (cascades to columns and relationships). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_column, delete_relationship, and delete_schema.

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 when to use this tool (to delete a whole table and its dependent structures) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as delete_column for partial deletions. No conditional or failure context is provided.

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