delete_row

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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and specifies the return format, including error handling and rows_affected. However, it lacks details on permissions required, transaction behavior, or potential side effects like cascading deletions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor verbosity in the Returns section could be tightened, but overall it's efficient and earns its place.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 2 params), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately, though it could benefit from more usage context or error examples.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'table' (including schema notation examples) and 'id' (as the primary key value). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints for 'id'.

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 row by primary key') and identifies the resource ('row'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'insert_row' and 'update_row' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_row' for modifications or 'execute_query' for custom deletion logic. It mentions primary key deletion but doesn't clarify prerequisites such as needing an existing connection or database context, which are implied by sibling tools like 'connect' and 'switch_database'.

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