drop_index

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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks the operation as destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: the default '_id_' index cannot be dropped. It does not mention irreversibility, error behavior for nonexistent indexes, or any permission requirements, but annotations partially cover the destructive nature.

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 focused sentence that communicates the core action and the most important edge case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail; it is appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation.

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 low-complexity tool with a destructive hint and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential operation and the key exception. It could mention that the collection must exist or that the operation is irreversible, but these are minor gaps given the schema and annotation coverage.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reiterates that deletion is by name and that default '_id_' is protected, which is behavioral rather than adding significant new parameter semantics. No extra guidance is needed beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Hapus index berdasarkan nama' (delete index by name). It identifies both the verb and the resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like drop_collection and drop_database by specifying it targets indexes. The added note about the protected '_id_' index further clarifies scope.

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 dropping indexes rather than collections or databases, which is enough given the sibling names. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention consequences or prerequisites like collection existence.

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