tigergraph__drop_all_data_sources

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

The description repeats the destructive nature already captured by destructiveHint=true, so it adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not disclose irreversibility, effects on dependent objects, or the idempotentHint already present. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the warning is adequate but not additive.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no filler words. The primary action is front-loaded and the warning immediately follows. Every word earns its place, keeping the message crisp and actionable.

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?

As a bulk destructive operation, the description lacks details on irreversible consequences or what happens to associated resources after all data sources are dropped. However, the schema explains the confirm guard and profile selection, and annotations already flag destructiveness. This reaches the minimum viable level for a simple tool with rich schema coverage.

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?

Both confirm and profile parameters are fully described in the input schema, with schema coverage at 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as the requirement to set confirm=true to proceed. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action 'Drop all data sources' with a specific verb and resource scope. The word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling tool drop_data_source, which targets a single data source. The warning about destructiveness adds further clarity about the operation's impact.

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 versus alternatives such as drop_data_source for removing a single data source. No explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or condition-based selection criteria are given. The destructive warning implies caution but does not explain usage context.

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