sql_execute_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'enhanced error handling and result formatting' but does not disclose that raw SQL can modify data (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE), whether permissions are required, or what the result format actually is. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, 'enhanced error handling and result formatting' is vague and does not earn its place; it could be replaced with more concrete details or omitted. Overall, it is well-sized but slightly under-specified.

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 complexity of raw SQL execution and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention possible side effects, supported SQL statements, expected result shape, or any limitations. This is a powerful tool that needs more context for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, with both parameters described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema already clearly states 'query' is the SQL string and 'params' are query parameters.

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 tool executes raw SQL, with the verb 'Execute' and resource 'raw SQL'. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools (db_select etc.) but does not explicitly differentiate from sql_execute, which appears to be a closely related tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or mention that for standard CRUD operations one might prefer db_* or sql_execute tools. The phrase 'raw SQL' implies ad-hoc queries, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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