Delete Database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is irreversible ('Permanently') and the scope of destruction ('all its data'). However, it is silent on permission/authorization requirements, whether related artifacts (migrations, snapshots) are affected, and how partial failures are handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive scope is stated first. It is efficient, though for a high-stakes destructive tool the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true economy.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description minimally covers what is destroyed but omits reversibility caveats beyond 'permanently', authorization needs, and failure behavior. Adequate as a minimum, but thin for an irreversible operation.

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% and the single parameter (databaseId) is fully documented in the schema as the database ID to delete, so the description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (database) plus the blast radius (all its data), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_database, get_database, and list_databases. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as snapshot, migrate, or introspect_schema, and no prerequisites or preconditions (backup first, ownership, confirmation) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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