execute

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

The destructiveHint annotation (true) covers the destructive nature, and the description adds context that the tool returns only success/error and no row results. This extra behavioral detail goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the command's output behavior. No contradiction exists, and the description enriches the safety profile slightly beyond the bare annotation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, followed by output behavior and an alternative. Every sentence adds value: the first details scope, the second clarifies return semantics and directs users to the correct sibling for SELECT. No superfluous words.

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 tool is relatively simple, the description covers the required statement types, output behavior (success/error only), and explicitly mentions the alternative for SELECT. Given the destructiveHint annotation and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It fully addresses the essential aspects.

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 'sql' and 'database' parameters described in the schema. The description reinforces that the sql parameter should contain a DDL/DML statement, but it does not add new semantic details about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full descriptive burden.

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 DDL/DML statements and lists concrete examples (CREATE TABLE, ALTER TABLE, DROP TABLE, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'query' tool by noting that SELECT statements should use 'query' instead. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope that unambiguously differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for DDL or DML statements that return no row results. It also names the alternative for read-only queries: 'Use query for SELECT.' This directly addresses selection between siblings, meeting the explicit when/alternative criterion.

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