execute_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions 'arbitrary SQL' and schema modification, implying destructive potential, but does not explicitly state risks like irreversible data loss, required permissions, transaction behavior, or side effects. The agent is left unaware of important consequences beyond the basic fact that it executes SQL.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose then providing usage guidance and arguments. It has no filler and is logically structured with clear sections, making it easy to scan.

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?

Although output schema exists, this tool executes arbitrary SQL, so high-impact context is needed. The description omits security/safety warnings, error behavior, transactional guarantees, and any limits on query complexity or resource usage. It also only disambiguates from insert_graph, not from get_schema or get_database_status, leaving part of the sibling context incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter info is 'query: SQL string to execute,' which adds minimal meaning over the schema's 'query' string type. It does not explain whether multiple statements are allowed, expected SQL dialect, or any format/escaping requirements, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states 'Execute arbitrary SQL statements on the connected database' with specific examples (SELECT, CREATE TABLE, ALTER TABLE, updates), clearly defining the tool's scope. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling insert_graph by warning not to use it for mock/seed records, thus differentiating itself from the primary alternative.

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 'When to use' section explicitly lists valid use cases (read operations, schema modification, updates) and provides an explicit exclusion ('DO NOT use this for inserting mock/seed records') with a named alternative tool (insert_graph). This is exactly the kind of when/when-not guidance expected.

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