delete_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses auto-backup behavior, the nuance of backup=False, atomic validated save, and refusal on documents open in Word — substantial and useful behavioral detail beyond the bare schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then packs the key behavioral caveats into a short reminder. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 three parameters and no annotations, it covers the mutation, backup behavior, atomicity, and a key operational failure condition. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains table_index's source and backup's effect, but leaves file_path implicit and the backup rotation semantics somewhat terse.

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 the action ('Delete'), the target ('a whole table'), and the parameter source ('table_index from list_tables'). This differentiates it from sibling row/column operations like delete_rows and delete_columns.

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?

It gives clear context by specifying the table_index comes from list_tables and emphasizes 'whole table', implying row/column/partial deletion belongs elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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