remove_table

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the tool also removes every relation connected to the table, which goes beyond the destructive annotation. It does not discuss reversibility or prerequisites, but the annotation covers the core destructive nature.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, containing no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple delegation.

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 destructive tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential effect (cascade removal of relations). It omits details like confirmation prompts or diagram references, but these are not critical given the annotations and schema.

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 schema provides two parameters (table, diagram) with zero description coverage. The description implicitly clarifies 'table' as the entity to remove, but says nothing about 'diagram' or how the parameters relate. This leaves ambiguity about the required context for the agent.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'table', and clarifies the scope by adding 'every relation connected to it'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_relation and remove_column, making the tool's purpose unequivocal.

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 implies usage for complete removal of a table along with its relations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. An agent must infer the discriminator from the phrase 'every relation connected to it'.

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