drop_security_policy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses permanent destruction of policy and predicates, and the environment variable prerequisite. This is sufficient for a destructive operation.

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?

Highly concise: two main sentences plus a bullet-pointed args list. Front-loaded with the action, no superfluous text.

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 low complexity and presence of output schema (context signal), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, destructive nature, prerequisite, parameter guidance. Minor omission: no mention of return value, but not critical for drop operations.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning by explaining 'policy_name' format (qualified name) and context for workspace and item. This compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Drop a row-level security policy' and references 'Executes DROP SECURITY POLICY', making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_security_policy and set_security_policy_state.

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?

Explicitly warns it is a permanently destructive operation and requires FABRIC_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=1, guiding when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the destructive nature implies alternatives (e.g., disabling).

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