execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses mode-dependent permission behavior (which statement classes are permitted or blocked per mode) and the single-statement constraint. It stops short of stating error behavior, whether operations are transactional/atomic, or confirmation requirements, but the permission gating is genuinely valuable context beyond the schema.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the mode-conditional constraints. No filler and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the mode-gating rules are the essential missing context and are fully covered. Minor gaps remain around error/result behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 100% for the single 'sql' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds the important semantic that the SQL must be a write statement (DML/DDL per mode), which is meaningful, but provides no syntax, batching, or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific operation (执行单条写操作 – execute a single write statement) and its exact scope, distinguishing it from the read-oriented 'query' sibling and the multi-statement 'transaction' sibling through the 'single write operation' framing. An agent can determine from the text that this tool mutates data rather than reading it.

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?

It explicitly conditions use on connection mode: DML only in readwrite, DML+DDL in full, and disabled in readonly, which is strong usage guidance. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to alternatives for multi-statement writes (transaction) or reads (query), leaving some inference.

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