Stages Drop Stage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that a confirmation flag must be supplied — but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to files still in the stage, or required ownership.

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, zero waste, with the operation front-loaded and the precondition second. Nothing redundant with the title or name.

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 explained, and annotations carry the destructive flag. For a destructive DDL operation on an object that can hold data files, the description is still thin: it does not state irreversibility or what is lost along with the stage.

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 coverage is 75% and the three name parameters are documented with the quoting rule. The lone undocumented parameter, confirm, is only obliquely covered by "Requires confirmation" — the description never states that it must be set to true or what happens when it is false. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Drop a stage in Snowflake"), which unambiguously separates it from stages_list_stages, stages_describe_stage and stages_create_stage. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling or note that no undrop counterpart exists.

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" gives an implied precondition for invoking it, which is useful. But there is no guidance on prerequisites (ownership/privileges), when not to drop, or what to do instead if the stage must be preserved.

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