drop_index

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond disclosing the return format (success or error message). It does not elaborate on behavioral aspects like idempotency behavior (e.g., dropping a non-existent index) or potential side effects on collections.

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, consisting of one sentence explaining the tool's purpose followed by a structured parameter list and return type. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 that this is a destructive tool (annotations show destructiveHint=true) with sibling tools like 'create_index' and 'destroy_collection', the description is insufficient. It omits important context such as whether the index must exist, the behavior if it doesn't, and the exact format of the return string. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return values.

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 description merely rephrases the schema's parameter descriptions ('Collection identifier', 'Name of the indexed field') without adding constraints, examples, or format details. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by providing meaningful semantic enrichment.

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 tool's function: 'Remove the index from a field.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_index' (which creates an index) and 'destroy_collection' (which removes entire collections).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_index' or 'destroy_collection'. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for the collection to be open or the index to exist, nor does it suggest alternative actions.

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