execute_ddl

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

With no annotations, the description discloses auto-commit behavior, success message format, and error throwing. It could mention permissions or locking, but covers the key behavioral traits sufficiently.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with purpose and includes critical formatting details efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers input usage, return value, and error behavior. It references list_databases for context, making it self-contained and complete.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'database' is a key from list_databases, and 'sql' is a single DDL statement without trailing semicolon, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema types.

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 clearly states the tool executes DDL statements like CREATE TABLE, ALTER TABLE, etc., and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like execute_dml and execute_script by specifying DDL-only and single-statement constraint.

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 clear formatting rules (no trailing semicolon, single statement) and implies usage context (DDL vs DML/scripts). It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the sibling tool names provide implicit guidance.

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