uc_table_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description does not add behavioral context such as whether the deletion is reversible, if it requires table to be empty, or if there are any side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still misses an opportunity to clarify implications.

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?

A single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action and the corresponding API call. No unnecessary words or duplication.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the basic purpose and operation. However, it could be considered slightly incomplete given the destructive nature (e.g., no mention of data loss), but annotations compensate for that.

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 sole parameter 'full_name' is fully described in the schema ('Table full name (catalog.schema.table)'). The description adds no further parameter details beyond repeating the endpoint. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value added.

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 'Delete a table' and includes the REST API endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools (e.g., uc_catalog_delete, uc_schema_delete), which is acceptable given the distinct resource type in the tool name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uc_table_update, uc_table_get). No prerequisites or contextual advice provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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