tables_db_delete_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement ('write permissions'), which is a critical behavioral trait for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., rows, columns), or any rate limits/constraints. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a destructive tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a table by its unique ID') followed by permission context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and permissions but lacks details on behavioral consequences (e.g., permanence, cascading effects), error handling, or return values. For a delete operation with significant implications, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 both parameters (database_id and table_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format, sourcing, or relationships between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 a table') and identifies the resource ('by its unique ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tables_db_delete_row or tables_db_delete_column which target different resources. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 mentions that 'Only users with write permissions have access to delete this resource,' which provides some context about prerequisites, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tables_db_delete (which might delete other database objects) or tables_db_delete_rows (which deletes data within tables). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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