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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: the manage-scope auth requirement, the fact that SQL is safety-checked, and the preview-by-default behavior when confirmed is omitted. It could go further on irreversibility or error behavior, but the added value is real.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource, then auth requirement, then the critical preview-vs-execute distinction. No filler; each sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% param coverage, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope, safety check, and the confirm-to-execute gate. It is slightly thin on identifying managedDatabaseId and on the params array, which is why it is not a full 5.

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 only 50%: confirmed and params are documented in the schema, while sql and managedDatabaseId are not. The description reinforces the confirmed semantics (preview without it) and characterizes sql as write/DDL, but adds little for managedDatabaseId or the params array, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: run a write or DDL statement (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/CREATE/ALTER) against a managed database. This clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings like nexusai_managed_db_query and nexusai_db_query_preview without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives real operating guidance: manage scope is required and the statement is only previewed unless confirmed=true, which tells the agent how to safely stage the call. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when a different sibling should be chosen instead.

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