Snowflake Drop Database

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds that a confirmation flag is required, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe what gets destroyed (schemas, tables, stages, data), whether undrop is possible, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the action and the critical safety requirement. Nothing extraneous.

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 tool, the description should explain the consequences of dropping a database (irreversibility, cascade effects) even with an output schema present. It covers the action and confirmation but leaves significant behavioral and prerequisite gaps – not fully complete for a high-risk operation.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description mentions the confirmation flag and the resource, but does not explain the 'name' parameter format (e.g., database identifier) or the exact semantics of 'confirm'. For a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description only partially compensates.

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 (drop) and resource (database), and among 100+ siblings the sibling snowflake_undrop_database and snowflake_drop_schema make it clear exactly what is targeted. An agent can confidently distinguish this from undrop or drop-schema without opening a schema.

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 noting it requires a confirmation flag, giving the agent a clue about the safety gate. However, it does not say when to use this destructive operation versus snowflake_undrop_database or describe prerequisites like ownership privileges. Implied usage only.

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