execute_sql

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the single-statement constraint, the confirm requirement for DROP/TRUNCATE, and the readOnly-connection limitation. It does not describe transaction semantics, whether multiple statements are rejected, or what is returned, but the safety-relevant context is well covered.

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 sentences with the core operation front-loaded, then the two safety conditions. No filler, every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only destructiveHint in annotations, the description covers the essential risks (confirmation, readOnly exclusion, single statement). Missing transaction/return behavior details keep it from being fully complete, but an agent has enough to invoke it safely.

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 50%: confirm and database are documented in the schema, while sql and params are bare. The description reinforces the confirm semantics for DROP/TRUNCATE but says nothing about the params array binding or when to pass database, so it only partially compensates for the 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 specific verb (Ejecuta) and resource (sentencia SQL única) and scopes it to statements that modify data or schema, with examples (ALTER, UPDATE, CREATE INDEX). It implicitly separates itself from read-oriented siblings like run_query/select_records, but never names an alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 concrete usage conditions: DROP/TRUNCATE require confirm=true, and the tool is unavailable on readOnly connections. It stops short of explicitly naming run_query/select_records as the alternative for non-mutating statements, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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