write_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses transaction wrapping and the exact-connection requirement, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention the confirm parameter's role in destructive statements (though schema covers it) or any side effects/permissions. The transaction info adds value beyond schema, but more could be said about error handling or return behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value—purpose, connection requirement, and transaction behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it executes, connection requirements, and transaction semantics. It doesn't explain the confirm parameter's necessity for destructive statements (but schema does) and omits return-value details (no output schema). Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call it 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'name' must be an exact match (no partial matching) and that multiple statements in 'query' run on one connection and are wrapped in a transaction. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, earning a 4.

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 opens with 'Run INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL', which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_query (likely read-only) by explicitly targeting mutating SQL, so an agent can immediately tell what it does.

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 clear context on when to use it: it requires an exact connection name or id and explains transaction behavior for multiple statements. It doesn't explicitly contrast with execute_query, but the mutating-SQL focus and sibling names imply the division of labor. Lacks an explicit 'use this for writes, execute_query for reads' statement, so not a 5.

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