tables_db_delete_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes a column' implies a destructive mutation but provides no information about permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to data in the column, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 at just two words. While it may be under-specified, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it structurally efficient despite content limitations.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling deletion tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like behavioral implications, usage distinctions from similar tools, or what to expect after execution. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the overall contextual gaps.

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 all three parameters ('database_id', 'table_id', 'key') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Deletes a column' states the basic action but is vague about scope and context. It specifies the verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a column'), but doesn't clarify what system/database this operates on or how it differs from sibling tools like 'tables_db_delete' or 'tables_db_delete_table'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for deletion operations (e.g., 'tables_db_delete', 'tables_db_delete_row', 'tables_db_delete_table'), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from related tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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