execute_ddl

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It highlights key behaviors: auto-commit, irreversibility (dropped tables/columns cannot be recovered), and the fixed return message. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or concurrency, which would be useful for a complete understanding.

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 concise with two substantive sentences, a warning, and a return note. It is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, and every sentence adds crucial information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, risks, and outcome. It is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema: it specifies that 'database' is a key from list_databases, and clarifies that 'sql' should be a single DDL statement with no trailing semicolon. This guidance prevents common mistakes.

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 a clear verb ('Execute') and resource ('a single DDL statement'), lists specific DDL types (CREATE/ALTER/DROP TABLE, CREATE INDEX), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning auto-commit and contrasting with execute_script for multiple statements.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (before altering/dropping, inspect first) and when-not-to-use (for multiple statements use execute_script). It also includes a clear warning about irreversibility, helping the agent decide appropriately.

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