Run a database query

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

The description reveals critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: row limits are enforced, mutations are blocked by default, a preview and confirm_token are required, stacked statements are refused, and bypassing WordPress hooks means caches are not invalidated. This goes far beyond the sparse annotation hints and gives the agent a complete behavioral picture.

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 yet information-dense, front-loading the purpose, then the safety mechanism, and finally the usage caveat. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with mutation safety and multiple parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, safety gating, the two-step confirmation flow, and the consequences of using raw SQL. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly, even without an output schema.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dependency between allow_mutation and confirm_token (preview flow) and noting that max_rows triggers an automatic LIMIT. This clarifies interactions not obvious from the schema.

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 tool runs a SQL query against the WordPress database, specifies the immediate execution of read-type statements, and explicitly distinguishes it from the REST API and WP-CLI by stating it should be used only when those cannot access the data. This provides a precise verb+resource and sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this tool only when the REST API and WP-CLI are insufficient. It also explains the mutation safety flow, noting that mutations require allow_mutation and a confirm_token, which tells the agent when and how to use the tool safely.

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