Snowflake Drop Stage

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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the confirmation requirement, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about irreversibility, required privileges, or effects on dependent objects.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 a destructive 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the definition is under-specified: it omits how the confirm flag must be set and how database/schema defaults are resolved.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only alludes to the 'confirm' flag and ignores stage_name, database and schema_name entirely, leaving no indication of naming/qualification or default schema resolution.

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 clear verb+resource ('Drop a stage in Snowflake'), which distinguishes it from siblings like snowflake_create_stage, snowflake_list_stages and snowflake_remove_stage_file. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is 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 at a precondition but gives no when-to-use context, no guidance on alternatives (e.g. undrop semantics, or remove_stage_file for contents only), and no explanation of how confirmation is actually supplied.

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