delete_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, permanently deletes the table and all its data, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user. It also discloses the endpoint rejection behavior, which is valuable beyond basic intent.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then a short constraint paragraph, a caution warning, and a compact Args list. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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 tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, it covers what the tool does, where it works, what fails, the safety warning, and every parameter. The output schema exists to handle return shape, so nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description documents all three parameters with real meaning: workspace name/GUID, warehouse name/GUID with endpoint rejection, and qualified_name format with the example 'dbo.sales'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

Opens with 'Drop a SQL table.' — a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from sibling delete/drop tools like delete_warehouse, drop_view, and drop_procedure. The title and field names reinforce the intent.

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?

States an explicit constraint: only supported on Fabric Data Warehouses, not SQL Analytics Endpoints, and even discloses that the service rejects endpoints with a ToolError. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-table objects, but the resource scope plus the exclusion is enough for routing.

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