Delete Table

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of explaining consequences. It goes well beyond that: the entire table is cleared regardless of type, the table no longer exists after recompile, stale ids are auto-resolved, and no auto-compile occurs afterward—so the agent knows to check project status. This richly complements the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, the alternative tool routing comes second, and the two behavioral caveats (stale-id resolution and no auto-compile) are compact and specific. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 table-level operation with no output schema, the description explains the effect, the alternatives, the stale-id behavior, and the recommended follow-up project-status check. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the tool's response itself will look like or explicitly warn about irreversibility—though destructiveHint covers the latter implicitly. Overall, very complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions, especially for tableId and projectId. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema: stale ids are resolved automatically. This is helpful context for tableId semantics, though not strictly required given the schema's richness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an ENTIRE table from a project.' It clearly defines the scope ('whole table area is cleared... regardless of table type') and distinguishes itself from openl_delete_table_rows / openl_delete_table_columns, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the row/column deletion siblings, naming the alternatives and the condition ('To remove only a row or column WITHIN a table'). It also provides post-action guidance: run openl_project_status afterward to confirm compilation and check for dangling references. This is actionable routing guidance.

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