sql_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. 'Use with caution' vaguely implies risk but does not specify that this can execute destructive or DDL statements, may return varying result shapes, or may have side effects. For a raw SQL tool, this is insufficient 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?

The description is extremely concise with no filler words, but it is under-specified for the complexity and risk of the tool. It communicates a vague warning but omits critical operational details, so the brevity is not effectively balanced with informativeness.

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 raw SQL execution capability, potential for destructive actions, and the existence of closely related siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error behaviors, or how it differs from sql_execute_raw. Without an output schema, more explanatory detail is expected but missing.

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 parameters 'query' and 'params' are already described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'params' map to placeholders in the SQL string. This is a minimally adequate baseline, but no additional semantic value is 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 the core function: 'Execute raw SQL query'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'sql_execute_raw', which appears to have an identical purpose. Therefore, while the purpose is clear, it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_select, db_insert, or sql_execute_raw. The phrase 'use with caution' is a warning, not usage context. No mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without decision-making information.

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