infomaniak_delete_database

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying the exact destructive impact ('database content (tables, rows) is wiped') and irreversibility ('cannot be recovered without an Infomaniak backup'). It also discloses the two-phase commit behavior, adding meaningful context to the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the critical warning. Every word adds value: the action, the two-phase process, the access restriction, and the destructive consequence.

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 complexity (two-phase commit, destructive, three parameters), the description covers all necessary aspects: the process, the warning, and the access requirement. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including guidance on discovering hosting_id and the correct format for database_name. The description adds little beyond the schema, just mentioning two-phase commit which is already reflected in the confirmation_token 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 with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('MariaDB database'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_site or delete_mailbox by specifying the exact resource type.

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 useful context for usage: 'Two-phase commit' informs the agent that a two-step confirmation process is required, and 'manager-private API' indicates restricted access. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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