fluig_rm_db_exec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as 'WRITE' and mentions potential read-only constraints, but lacks details on destructive side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Information is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no wasted words: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a crucial usage caveat. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior and edge case (read-only datasource). Minor omission: return value not described, but not critical.

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%, and the description adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It reiterates that sql is for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE and confirms the confirm flag, but no additional semantics or format details are provided.

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 'WRITE. Run INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE against the TOTVS RM database.', specifying both the verb (write operations) and the resource (TOTVS RM database). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like fluig_rm_db_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?

The description explicitly advises when not to use this tool ('RM datasource is often configured read-only') and directs to an alternative ('RM DataServer API instead'), providing clear context for tool selection.

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