tables_db_delete_rows

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 states the destructive action ('delete rows') and the bulk nature, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether deletions are permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens with the transaction_id parameter. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and important edge case behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 bulk operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical contextual information like error handling, response format, authentication requirements, or the implications of the 'all rows' deletion behavior. The tool's complexity warrants more comprehensive guidance.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining the behavior when 'queries' parameter is omitted ('all rows are deleted'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the specific action ('bulk delete rows') and the mechanism ('using queries'), with the important clarification that 'if no queries are passed then all rows are deleted.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tables_db_delete_row' (singular) and 'tables_db_delete_table' (different resource).

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 usage for bulk deletion with optional query-based filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tables_db_delete_row' (single row) or 'tables_db_delete_table' (entire table). It mentions the 'all rows' behavior when queries are omitted, which provides some contextual guidance.

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