snowflake_drop_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it drops a schema (destructive) and requires confirmation, but does not elaborate on consequences, reversibility (though undrop_schema exists), permissions, or failure conditions. The confirmation flag is already visible in the schema, so the description adds no new behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that state the action and the key requirement. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and appropriately sized for the information it conveys. No wasted words.

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 with no annotations and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context (when to use vs. alternatives), parameter explanations, and behavioral details beyond the confirmation flag. Even though an output schema exists, that does not cover pre-call context. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's risks and prerequisites from this description.

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 by explaining parameters. It only mentions the confirmation flag (already evident from the schema's default false), and does not explain the 'name' or 'database' parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly provide inputs without additional knowledge.

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 'Drop a schema in Snowflake', providing a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like snowflake_drop_database and snowflake_drop_table by naming the resource type. The mention of a confirmation flag adds specificity, but it does not explicitly contrast with undrop_schema, which would enhance differentiation.

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 gives a critical usage guideline: the confirmation flag is required, implying the confirm parameter must be true for the drop to execute. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like undrop_schema, and does not mention prerequisites such as ownership or dependency checks. It offers minimal but non-trivial direction.

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