tables_db_delete

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 effectively indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and specifies authorization requirements. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated tables/rows), rate limits, or error conditions.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical authorization context. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and permissions but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., confirmation, error handling) and return values. Given the high-stakes nature of deletion, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'database_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying the ID is 'unique', which is already suggested by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a database by its unique ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tables_db_get' (read) or 'tables_db_create' (create). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying the required permission ('Only API keys with databases.write scope can delete a database'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'tables_db_delete_table' for deleting a table instead of the entire database).

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