drop_database

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the entire database and all collections), that the deletion is permanent, and that confirmation via confirm: true is mandatory. This gives the agent the critical behavioral context needed to avoid accidental destructive calls.

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 a single, concise warning that front-loads the destructive nature of the operation and the required confirmation. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

Given that this is a highly destructive tool, the description covers what is deleted, permanence, and the mandatory safety confirmation. The parameters are fully documented in the schema and no output schema is needed, so the context is complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both database and confirm. The description repeats the confirm: true requirement but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (drop the database) and the full scope of the resource (the entire database with all its collections). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like drop_collection because it explicitly says 'seluruh database beserta semua koleksinya' rather than a single collection.

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 the tool is for permanently deleting a whole database, but it does not explicitly contrast it with drop_collection or state when not to use it. There is clear contextual meaning, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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