peaka_delete_semantic_table

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial blast-radius disclosure — 'Removes the table mapping only; the saved query that backs it is not affected' — which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a delete operation. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action and its scope boundary, the second delivers the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence earns its place and is immediately actionable.

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 3-parameter delete with full schema coverage, annotations, and a stated blast radius, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gaps are the absence of return/confirmation behavior (no output schema exists) and no guidance on downstream effects for objects referencing the deleted table — minor omissions for a simply-scoped destructive tool.

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%, with each parameter (projectId, catalogId, tableId) already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful workflow note around projectId ('call peaka_list_projects first') but no additional format or syntax semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Delete a semantic table from a semantic catalog in the Peaka project.' The clarifying clause 'Removes the table mapping only; the saved query that backs it is not affected' precisely scopes the operation and differentiates it from siblings like peaka_delete_query and peaka_delete_cache without needing to open their schemas.

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 an explicit, actionable workflow for the projectId prerequisite: 'call peaka_list_projects first and ask the user which project to use. Remember the chosen projectId for subsequent calls.' It also implies a when-not boundary ('the saved query that backs it is not affected'), signaling the agent should use a query-deletion tool for the backing query, though it never names an alternative sibling explicitly.

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