Permanently deletes a managed PostgreSQL database by ID, dropping the database and all data; this destructive action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a managed PostgreSQL database. This will drop the database and remove all data. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database_id | Yes | Database ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: what is destroyed ('drop the database and remove all data') and that the effect is irreversible. It still omits operational behavior such as permission requirements or what happens to services currently bound to the database.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the consequence and irreversibility warning. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.
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 single-parameter tool with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and blast radius adequately. The one meaningful gap is dependency handling — whether a connected app must be disconnected first — which matters 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%, so database_id (UUID) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or where to obtain it, which is acceptable given the schema does that work.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a managed PostgreSQL database'), which cleanly separates it from the delete_app / delete_project / delete_env siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 never says when to reach for this versus disconnect_database, delete_app, or restore_backup, nor does it mention prerequisites such as detaching connected apps before dropping the database. The 'cannot be undone' line is a caution, not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.