delete_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral fact: the tool is disabled for safety. However, it omits the destructive/irreversible nature of dropping a column, what happens to existing data, and any permission requirements for when it is re-enabled.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the safety caveat is placed where it will be read. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the headline fact (disabled) but leaves the agent without the irreversibility/permission context it would need if the tool were active. Adequate minimum, clear gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented as logical names for the entity and column. The description's use of "column" and "table" only loosely maps to attribute_logical_name and entity_logical_name, adding little beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (delete a column from a Dataverse table), which distinguishes it from sibling mutations such as delete_entity_key, delete_picklist_option, and delete_record. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

"Currently disabled for safety" is valuable usage information telling the agent the call will not succeed, but it gives no alternative path (e.g. update_attribute or a migration route) and no stated conditions under which deletion would be appropriate. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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