liara_delete_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a database' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data/connections, or any confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 maximally concise at three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundant information. For a simple destructive operation, this brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of missing important behavioral context.

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 database deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation's consequences, required permissions, confirmation needs, or what happens upon success/failure. Given the high-stakes nature of database deletion and the lack of structured safety information, this description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The name of the database to delete'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as format requirements or validation rules. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('a database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other database operations like 'create', 'update', or 'get' database tools in the sibling list. However, it doesn't specify whether this deletes a single database or has any scope limitations beyond what the parameter implies.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., database must exist, no active connections), consequences (e.g., data loss, irreversible action), or when to choose deletion over other database management tools like 'update_database' or 'resize_database' from the sibling list.

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