databases_delete

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true, but the description adds three facts beyond that: deletion is irreversible, it destroys cluster data, and unused prepaid days are refunded to the balance. The scope requirement is also disclosed. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation or schema.

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 dense sentence pair with zero filler: action, data loss, refund, irreversibility, then scope. The most consequential warning (irreversibility) is front-loaded before the permissions note.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, nothing material is missing: the irreversible effect, billing consequence, and required scope are all stated, and both parameters are defined in the schema. An agent has everything it needs to decide and call correctly.

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%: both id ("pg-<n> from databases_list") and confirm ("the cluster's name, typed to confirm") are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Delete a managed PostgreSQL cluster and its data," which cleanly separates it from siblings databases_create, databases_get, and databases_list. The named resource plus the destructive scope leaves no ambiguity about what is being acted on.

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?

It signals the critical precondition (requires databases:write scope) and the irreversibility ("Cannot be undone"), which is exactly what an agent needs before committing to a destructive call. It stops short of naming non-destructive alternatives or distinguishing cases where databases_set_allow might be preferred, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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