destroy_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the action is destructive, permanent, and irreversible, which is essential for an agent to understand the consequences. No additional side effects are mentioned, but the core behavioral trait is well communicated.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences plus a warning emoji and all-caps for emphasis. Every element serves a purpose: warning, action, permanence, and required confirmation. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description covers the key aspects: what it destroys, that it's irreversible, and the required confirmation. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or potential side effects, but for a simple delete operation, this is sufficient. The sibling tool list includes similar destructive tools, providing context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the confirm parameter requirement ('Deve ser exatamente 'CONFIRMO''), which is critical for safe execution. The other parameters are not elaborated, but the schema descriptions are adequate.

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 purpose: to remove a database and all its data permanently. It uses strong language ('DESTRUTIVO', 'irreversível') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_database and inspect_database by emphasizing the destructive nature.

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 specifies that a confirmation string ('CONFIRMO') is required, guiding the agent on a critical usage condition. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use or avoid the tool, the destructive context makes it clear that this is for irreversible deletion, not for safe operations.

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