execute_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely important context by flagging DDL/DML support and warning caution, implying destructive potential. But it omits permissions required, statement atomicity, reversibility, multi-statement behavior, and result limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose then risk note. Slightly terse on the caution clause, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 an arbitrary SQL execution surface that supports schema-altering DDL and data-modifying DML, the description is thin: no annotations, no output schema, and no statement about results, permissions, or side effects. An agent could invoke it without knowing the blast radius.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it. The description adds no syntax, dialect, or statement-batching detail beyond the schema's 'Comando SQL a executar'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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+resource ('Executar SQL') and scopes it to the project schema. The DDL/DML note distinguishes it from read-only siblings like query_data and list_tables, though it never names those siblings 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?

'Use com cuidado' is a caution rather than routing guidance. The DDL/DML mention implies this is the tool for writes and schema changes, but no when-to-use/when-not rule or alternative (e.g. query_data for reads) is stated.

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