execute_hg_dml_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes DML SQL, implying data mutation, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Execute (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) SQL'). It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from context. Overall, it earns its place without waste.

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 complexity of a DML execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'The DML SQL query to execute in Hologres database'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as syntax examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Execute') and resource ('SQL to insert, update, and delete data in Hologres database'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like execute_hg_ddl_sql or execute_hg_select_sql, which handle other SQL types, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage for DML operations (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_hg_ddl_sql for DDL or execute_hg_select_sql for queries. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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