write_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation type without disclosing behavioral traits such as transaction handling, idempotency, return values, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a write tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage notes). No wasted words.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not mention whether queries are auto-committed, if multiple statements are allowed, or what happens on failure. For a write tool, these are relevant.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'query' described as 'SQL query to execute'. The description adds value by specifying that the query must be INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE, constraining the input beyond the schema's generic description.

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 specifies the verb 'execute' and the resource 'INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE query on the SQLite database', which is specific and clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_query. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (for write operations) by listing INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE. It does not explicitly state alternatives like read_query for reads, but the sibling tool names provide context. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites.

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