CockroachDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool drops an index (implying a destructive mutation), but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects on database performance, or error conditions beyond generic 'error message'. This is inadequate for a destructive 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 appropriately concise with a clear main statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. The formatting helps readability, though the Returns section is vague ('A success message or an error message'). Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dropping' entails (e.g., immediate removal vs. background process), what happens to dependent objects, or what format the return messages take. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It specifies that 'index_name' is the 'Name of the index to drop', which slightly clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format requirements, naming conventions, or validation rules. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Drop') and the resource ('an existing index'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'drop_database', 'drop_table', or 'drop_view', which all perform similar deletion operations on different 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the index must exist), consequences (e.g., performance impact on queries), or when to choose other drop operations like 'drop_table' instead. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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