run_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: automatic transaction default when any statement writes. It also communicates the exact-match requirement for connections, but does not mention confirmation for destructive statements, rollback behavior, or return data. This is partial transparency.

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?

Three short sentences carry high-signal information with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and a key safety default. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers only the core use case and one safety behavior. It does not mention destructive-operation confirmation, when to prefer this over sibling tools, or what the response looks like. The schema fills in parameter details, but high-level operational context is incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds some context around connection name exactness and transaction defaults, but these are already reflected in schema properties like name and transaction.

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 action ('Run several SQL statements') and resource ('on one connection'), clearly indicating a batch execution tool. It implicitly distinguishes from single-statement siblings like execute_query and write_query, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires an exact connection name or id') and a default behavior, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus execute_query, write_query, or explain_query. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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