snowflake_drop_stream

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool drops a stream, implying a destructive action, but does not clarify permanence, reversibility (e.g., absence of undrop_stream), side effects on dependent objects, or that confirm=false results in no action. 'Requires confirmation' is vague—it does not explicitly say the drop is skipped unless confirm is set to true.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key requirement (confirmation). While terse, every word serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy.

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 a confirmation flag and optional scoping parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the behavior of confirm (whether false means no-op), the role of database and schema_name, or any consequences. An output schema exists but the tool's side effects and failure modes remain unclear. The description leaves too much to inference for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 addresses confirm implicitly via 'Requires confirmation.' The database and schema_name parameters are optional and default to null, but the description provides no guidance on their purpose or how they scope the drop. The stream_name is obvious but not explicitly described.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Drop a stream.' This clearly indicates the tool's purpose. While there are many drop_* siblings, 'stream' uniquely identifies the target resource, so an agent can distinguish it from drop_table or drop_database without ambiguity.

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 only mentions 'Requires confirmation' which hints at the confirm parameter but provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. It lacks explicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate, and does not mention that confirmation is mandatory for the drop to execute.

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