delete_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so exceptionally. It warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, that the schema is permanently deleted, that non-empty schemas fail unless cascade is true, and that cascade deletes all tables, views, and data. It also instructs the agent to explicitly confirm with the user before calling with cascade=True.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line action, prominent CAUTION warnings for destructive behavior, a supporting note about platform support, and a concise Args section. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the most safety-critical details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the absence of annotations, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted, when the operation fails, what cascade does, and the need for explicit user confirmation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so no critical behavioral context is missing.

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 provides only names, types, and defaults, so parameter semantics are entirely absent from structured data. The description compensates by explicitly defining workspace, item, name, and cascade, including that workspace and item accept names or GUIDs, item refers to a warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint, and cascade controls whether contained tables and views are dropped first.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Drop a SQL schema from a warehouse.' It further disambiguates from siblings like drop_view and delete_warehouse by making clear that the target is a schema, and that both Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints are supported.

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 clearly conveys when this tool applies: dropping schemas from supported Fabric data warehouse endpoints. It also explains failure conditions when tables/views exist and the need for cascade, which helps an agent decide whether this tool or a safer alternative is appropriate. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to exclude, but the resource-specific language makes the intended use clear.

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