lakehouse_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description simply restates the destructive action without adding context such as permanence, cascading effects, or permission requirements. It adds no behavioral information beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a simple delete operation.

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 low-complexity delete tool with complete schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of consequences or prerequisites, which would be useful for a destructive 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%, with both parameters already described as 'The lakehouse ID' and 'The workspace ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'lakehouse', clearly identifying the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling operations such as lakehouse_get, lakehouse_update, and lakehouse_delete_shortcut.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of irreversibility or required ownership. An agent gets no information about when lakehouse_delete is appropriate beyond what the name implies.

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