destroy_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the destructive action. It does not disclose whether data is permanently lost, whether deletion is reversible, or whether there are safety guards such as confirmation or cascade behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for stating the core action, though it sacrifices behavioral detail that would make it more complete.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain consequences, return value, or any conditions that should be verified before invoking it, which an agent needs for a high-stakes operation.

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 67%: projectName and serviceName are already described in the schema, and engine has a self-explanatory enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning but does not need to compensate heavily; the remaining engine parameter is covered by its allowed values.

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 states a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a database service'), which clearly separates it from destroy_app and destroy_project. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource scoping makes 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_database, inspect_database, or destroy_project. It also fails to state prerequisites or conditions that should be checked before deletion.

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