Governance Drop Role

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a confirmation gate, but does not disclose the real consequences an agent needs: what happens to grants held by the role, whether owned objects block the drop, or that the operation is irreversible (unlike databases/schemas/tables, there is no governance_undrop_role).

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?

Two short sentences, action first, prerequisite second, with zero filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for an irreversible destructive operation the definition is thin: confirmation mechanics are implied rather than specified, and side effects on grants/dependents are unaddressed. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: role_name is well documented in the schema (quoting rules), while confirm has no schema description. The description's 'Requires confirmation' partially compensates by signalling that confirm matters, but it does not state the expected value or behaviour on default false.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Drop a role in Snowflake'), which cleanly distinguishes it from governance_create_role, governance_list_roles and governance_describe_role. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the destructive verb makes the intent 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?

'Requires confirmation' hints that a confirm flag must be set, but never says which parameter, what value, or what happens if it is omitted (the schema default is false). There is no guidance on prerequisites such as revoking grants or transferring ownership before dropping, and no mention that no undrop sibling exists for roles.

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