Run Sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this mutates the database directly and is limited to write statements, which is valuable, but it omits permissions required, whether DDL is allowed, transaction/reversibility behavior, and blast radius.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the destructive nature front-loaded before the caution. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a highly destructive tool with no annotations, the description is thin on permissions, scope, and reversibility that an agent would need before invoking it.

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?

Only one parameter ('sql') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by restricting the param to write statements, but gives no syntax, formatting, or example beyond the three keywords.

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?

States a specific verb (execute) and resource (write SQL statement) and enumerates the statement types (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE). The word 'write' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'query' tool, but it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 only guidance is 'Use with caution', which is a warning rather than a when-to-use rule. It never says to prefer 'query' for reads or explains which database/scope the statement runs against, so an agent gets no routing logic.

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