insert_query

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

Annotations mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds valuable context: 'Commits automatically' and 'Returns the number of rows inserted.' This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies transaction behavior and return value.

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 four short, purposeful sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps supplementary details compact.

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 simple insert tool, the description covers purpose, connection requirements, transaction behavior, and return value. An output schema exists, so further return details are unnecessary.

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 all three parameters described in the input schema. The description reinforces the connection constraint but doesn't add new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Insert a single row into a table,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_query and delete_query by focusing on insert-only behavior.

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?

It explicitly says 'Only available on writable connections (readonly=false in list_schemas),' which is a key usage constraint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for multi-row inserts, but the sibling tool names imply context.

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