drop_procedure

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

The description indicates a destructive operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as confirmation requirements, authorization needs, or irreversible consequences. The schema's 'confirmed' parameter covers some details, but the description itself lacks transparency.

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?

A single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

The description is insufficient for a destructive tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites beyond the schema fields.

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 description adds no value to parameter understanding beyond the schema. With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, but the description could have highlighted the required 'procedure' parameter or the role of 'confirmed'. It does not.

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 'Drop a stored procedure.' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like drop_database or drop_index. However, it is somewhat tautological as it essentially restates the tool name.

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?

No information is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as drop_procedure vs drop_function or when confirmation is required. The description only states the action, leaving the agent without usage context.

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