akb_drop_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly discloses irreversibility, scope ('all rows'), and the admin requirement. It stops short of describing cascade effects or what happens to related objects, but the core destructive behavior is explicit.

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?

Three short clauses deliver action, consequence, and prerequisite with no filler. The warning is front-loaded right after the verb, and the admin requirement closes it efficiently.

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?

The description covers what gets deleted, that it is permanent, and who may perform it, which is sufficient for a two-parameter tool. It doesn't mention effects on related objects, but the schema already documents the URI format and auth token, so the remaining gap is small.

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 baseline applies; both uri and _vault_skill_ack are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that.

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?

States a specific action (permanently delete) and resource (a table with all rows), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like akb_delete_vault and akb_delete_collection. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the generic akb_delete, but the table-specific scope is 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?

Implies use when a table must be removed permanently and states the admin-role prerequisite, but it does not spell out when to prefer this over akb_delete or akb_alter_table. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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