tigergraph__drop_vector_attribute

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds useful context by noting that it 'creates a schema change job,' which implies an asynchronous operation rather than an immediate change. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the side-effect profile.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by a brief technical note on the implementation. 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 simple destructive operation with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information. It explains the action and the underlying mechanism. The annotations cover the safety aspects, so nothing critical 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 100%, with each parameter clearly described (vertex_type, vector_name, graph_name, profile). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a vector attribute') and the target ('from a vertex type'), making it distinct from sibling tools like add_vector_attribute or list_vector_attributes. The verb and resource are precise, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context about the operation (dropping a vector attribute) and implies when it is relevant, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the tool name and description are self-explanatory, the guidance is adequate though not fully explicit.

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