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 describes the action ('Delete') and return values, including potential error status and rows affected, which adds context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or constraints like transaction handling or rate limits.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, parameters, and return values (with an output schema present). However, it could improve by addressing potential risks or prerequisites, such as confirmation steps or dependencies, to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'table' can include schema (e.g., 'dbo.Users' or 'Users') and clarifies that 'id' is the 'Primary key value of the row to delete,' providing essential context not present in the schema's bare titles.

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'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_row' or 'insert_row' by focusing on deletion rather than modification or creation.

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 by specifying 'by primary key,' which suggests when to use this tool (for targeted deletion) versus alternatives like 'execute_query' for more complex operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as 'update_row' for modifications instead of deletions.

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