mysql_legacy_ddl

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: operations are off by default (MYSQL_LEGACY_ALLOW_DDL=true required), DROP and TRUNCATE are irreversible, and the tool rejects certain statement types. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives an agent essential safety information.

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 compact, front-loads the core action and constraint, and every sentence contributes necessary information: the exact operation, the enabling flag, irreversibility warnings, exclusions, and sibling routing. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive nature, the description covers all critical aspects: operation scope, enablement condition, irreversibility, unsupported objects, and alternative tools. There is no output schema, but for a mutation tool, return values are less critical; all necessary invocation details are present.

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?

The schema already fully covers the single parameter 'sql' with a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that exactly one table-level DDL statement is expected and enumerating accepted/rejected forms, which helps the agent construct valid 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 clearly identifies the tool as executing a single table-level DDL statement (CREATE, ALTER, DROP, TRUNCATE, RENAME) in SQL. It explicitly scopes the operation to table-level and lists the accepted statement types, distinguishing it from other tools by naming the purpose and exclusions.

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 usage guidance: it states when to use this tool (for table-level DDL), when to use alternatives (row changes via mysql_legacy_insert/update/delete), and an important environmental condition (MYSQL_LEGACY_ALLOW_DDL=true). It also includes exclusions (DROP DATABASE, views, indexes), making routing clear for an agent.

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