snowflake_drop_database

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 says 'Drop a database' and 'Requires confirmation flag,' but does not reveal that this is a destructive operation that permanently removes the database and its contents, nor does it mention whether recovery (undrop) is possible or the impact on dependent objects. The confirmation requirement is disclosed, but the severity and side effects are not.

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 short, declarative sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then states the key requirement. Every word 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?

For a destructive operation with two parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover the destructive nature, the exact role of the confirm flag (e.g., must be true to proceed), what happens if confirm is false, recovery options, or any output. An agent would not have enough information to safely invoke this tool without additional context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It only references the confirmation flag, implicitly indicating that `confirm` must be true to execute, but provides no explanation of `name` (what it is, format, or constraints). The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of `name`.

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 states the precise action ('Drop a database in Snowflake') with a clear verb and resource, and the name naturally differentiates it from siblings like create, clone, undrop, and describe. Even without explicitly naming alternatives, the action is unambiguous and distinct.

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 does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives such as truncate, drop_schema, or undrop. It only mentions that a confirmation flag is required, which is a precondition rather than usage context. No guidance on safety, prerequisites, or when it is appropriate to use.

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