tables_db_delete_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on query performance), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for a mutation tool. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for not being sufficiently informative.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, and while parameters are covered by the schema, the overall context for safe and correct usage is lacking. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies data.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'key' identifies the index within the table) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete an index' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (index), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what type of index (e.g., database index) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'tables_db_delete_column' or 'tables_db_delete_table', which also delete resources but different ones. It's vague about scope and context.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing index), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'tables_db_get_index' for reading or 'tables_db_create_index' for creating. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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