mdpa_delete_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the referential-integrity refusal condition. It says nothing about the mutation's permanence, whether it rewrites the input file or requires an 'output' path, or how 'overwrite' interacts with an existing target, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the refusal constraint immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be narrated. Still, for a destructive file-mutating tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin: it leaves the meaning of 'output' and 'overwrite' unresolved that the agent needs in order to call it 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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'table' is inferable from the text; 'output' (a destination path?) and 'overwrite' (silently replace an existing file?) are never explained, and 'path' versus 'output' semantics are ambiguous.

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 a precisely scoped resource ('a top-level Begin Table block'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from mdpa_set_table or mdpa_get_data_blocks. It stops short of naming a sibling or alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 clause 'Refused while a SubModelPart references the table' is a useful precondition that tells the agent when the call will fail, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. mdpa_set_table, mdpa_delete_entities) or what to do about the referencing SubModelPart first.

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