Run write statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly indicates this performs writes surfaces safety guards, and explains how to obtain returned rows, covering the key runtime behaviors.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by critical constraints. Zero filler or redundancy.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what it executes), safety guards, and return-value control. Minor gap: no statement about what happens without RETURNING (e.g., whether affected row count is returned), but this is acceptable.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable context: allowDangerous overrides guards and RETURNING usage. This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 runs a single INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statement, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like run_query (reads) and other DB introspection tools.

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?

Provides explicit safety constraints (refuses DDL/unscoped writes unless allowDangerous=true) and practical guidance (add RETURNING to see rows). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like run_query, the scope is clear.

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