⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Drop table and all data.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'DESTRUCTIVE' and that it drops 'all data,' which conveys the critical irreversible aspect. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether dependent objects are affected, permissions required, or confirmation behavior, leaving the disclosure incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. The warning is front-loaded and effectively communicates the essence of the operation. Every word 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 output schema, the description is seriously underdeveloped. It fails to explain side effects beyond data loss, prerequisites such as existing backups, or what happens upon success/failure. Given the complexity of a destructive operation, this is inadequate.

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 has two parameters (table and database_name) with zero schema description coverage. The description mentions 'table' generically but doesn't clarify the meaning or format of database_name, nor any parameter constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names already present in 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There is no mention of when to drop a table versus other schema operations, or any caution about prerequisites like ensuring data is backed up. The destructive warning is present but doesn't help with tool selection.

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