delete_partition

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the deletion is not immediate but occurs 'on the next save', and that the tool refuses to delete the only partition, which is safety-critical behavior. This is meaningful, though it does not mention permissions, error cases, or reversibility.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause serves a purpose: the first defines the action, the second adds a critical safety exception and directs to an alternative. No wasted words.

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?

The description captures the essential purpose and a key safeguard, but leaves gaps: it does not explain what 'on the next save' means precisely, does not describe the expected outcome or error behaviors, and does not clarify the role of sessionId in the operation. Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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?

The schema descriptions cover only the 'name' parameter (33% coverage). The description does not add meaningful details for 'sessionId' or 'table'; it only implicitly identifies 'partition' and 'table'. The unmentioned sessionId is left completely opaque, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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 function as 'Delete a partition from a table', specifying the verb and the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool delete_table by explicitly noting that it refuses to delete the table's only partition and directs the user to delete_table instead.

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 provides an explicit 'when not to use' scenario and names the alternative tool: 'Refuses to delete the table's ONLY partition - use delete_table for that.' It also hints at the delayed effect of deletion ('on the next save'), giving context on the tool's behavior. However, it does not discuss other potential alternative tools or general conditions for when deletion is appropriate.

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