execute_mutation

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it requests confirmation and creates a snapshot for rollback. It also mentions default result compression. These are important side effects that might not be obvious, and no annotations are present to cover them. However, it does not explicitly mention irreversibility (except via rollback) or potential locking, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It conveys the essential purpose and a key usage hint without any extraneous information. The structure is clear and to the point.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns. It mentions result compression but not the structure or content of the response (e.g., affected rows, result set, error handling). Given that there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return value. This omission makes the tool's context incomplete for a caller.

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?

The schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds a specific note about using verbosity=minimal for mutations, which is useful, but it does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool executes mutations (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, DDL), which unambiguously specifies its purpose and distinguishes it from query-only tools like execute_query.

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 some guidance (e.g., using verbosity=minimal for mutations when only affectedRows matter), but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_query or explain_query. The distinction is implicit from the term 'mutacion' but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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