delete_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single sentence 'Delete a database schema' does not disclose important traits: whether this is a hard or soft delete by default, what happens to objects within the schema, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 very concise (one sentence, 8 words). While brevity is good, the tool has 3 parameters and is a destructive operation, so more detail is warranted. The description does not waste words but is underspecified.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, destructive action, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral details. An AI agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without external knowledge of OpenMetadata conventions.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic info. The description adds no parameter explanations: it does not clarify the meaning of 'hard_delete' (soft vs hard delete) or 'recursive' (cascade delete). The agent cannot determine how to set these parameters correctly based on the description alone.

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 (delete), the resource (database schema), and the system (OpenMetadata). It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_table, delete_database, etc., making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (e.g., delete_database, delete_table). It does not mention prerequisites, cascading effects, or whether the operation is reversible. The recursive parameter implies cascading deletion, but this is not explained.

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