run_write

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

Discloses the two-step confirmation requirement for destructive operations, which is critical. However, does not describe the format of the risk summary return or any error/authentication behavior. With no annotations, more could be said, but the main safety feature is well communicated.

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, both essential. First sentence states purpose, second provides critical usage instruction. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, confirmation flow, and sibling relationship. Could be improved by explicitly stating what happens when confirm is false (returns risk summary) and any preconditions (e.g., user authentication). But overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but description adds meaningful context: explains confirm parameter's usage pattern and notes connectionId comes from list_connections. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states it runs write SQL statements (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, TRUNCATE, DROP, ALTER), clearly distinguishing from the read-only sibling run_query.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step guidance: for destructive operations, first call without confirm to get a risk summary, then call with confirm: true only after user approval. Also warns against passing confirm: true on first call.

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