tigergraph__drop_data_source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Drop (delete)' aligns with the destructive nature. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, but the annotations carry the safety profile. No contradiction exists; the description is consistent with the destructive and idempotent hints.

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, efficient sentence that states the action and resource with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations indicating destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explicit guidance on irreversible consequences or when to prefer this over drop_all_data_sources, which would be useful for an agent deciding between similar tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Drop (delete) a data source' clearly states the verb (drop/delete) and the resource (data source), distinguishing it from related tools like drop_all_data_sources and drop_graph. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 implies a destructive operation on a specific data source, and the schema's profile/graph_name parameters provide context for connection selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like drop_all_data_sources or update_data_source, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences.

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