Execute Procedure (deprecated — use mssql_execute_stored_procedure)

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

The description adds the deprecation status and alias relationship, which is not present in annotations. It discloses that this tool should be avoided and behaves identically to the replacement, though it doesn't elaborate on execution semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that immediately conveys deprecation and the replacement. No wasted words; perfectly sized for a deprecated alias.

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?

As a deprecated tool, the essential context (deprecation, replacement) is fully provided. It lacks operational details, but that is acceptable given the strong recommendation to use another tool. The presence of 4 params and no output schema doesn't necessitate more here.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only procedureName has a description). The tool description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like response_format and parameters remain unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for mssql_execute_stored_procedure, which indicates its function (executing stored procedures) through the sibling's name. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by pointing to the canonical replacement, though it doesn't state the action directly.

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 says 'deprecated' and names the alternative mssql_execute_stored_procedure, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and pointing to the correct replacement tool.

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