db_delete_checkVerifies which database record aaPanel would remove before deletion, using the database ID from db_list. Confirms the target matches the intended database.
The record the panel would remove, so a deletion can be confirmed against the right database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Database id from db_list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the non-mutating intent ('the panel would remove'), which is consistent, but adds nothing about return content, timing, or side effects an agent couldn't already assume.
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?
One short sentence with no filler and the preview intent is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated, and the sentence fragment reads awkwardly, but there is no wasted text.
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 simple read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate but never states what it actually returns (record details, blocking dependents, etc.) or how to use the result to confirm the deletion. A preview tool needs that at the margin.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that 'id' is a database id from db_list. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies. No 0-param bump because one parameter exists.
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 conveys that this is a preview of what a deletion would remove, which is a distinct function from the sibling db_delete. However, the phrasing is a fragment with no clear verb ('The record the panel would remove'), and it never uses the word preview/dry-run or names db_delete as the operation it guards. Purpose is inferable but not stated crisply.
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 clause 'so a deletion can be confirmed against the right database' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-call guidance and no mention of the db_delete sibling it is meant to precede. The agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.