mutate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important aspects like permissions required, side effects, transaction handling, error behavior, or security risks (e.g., SQL injection).

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details about usage and parameters.

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 tool that executes arbitrary SQL mutations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about output (e.g., affected rows), error handling, security considerations, and parameterization. The absence of annotations and output schema heightens this gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameter meaning, but it only mentions 'optional params' without explaining their format (e.g., array of values for placeholders). The 'sql' parameter's role is clear, but 'params' remains vague.

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 specifies the verb 'Run' and explicitly lists the SQL operations (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE), clarifying it is for data modification. This helps distinguish it from the SELECT-focused sibling 'query', though it could be more precise about scope (e.g., DML only).

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 implies use for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'query'. Without guidance, an agent might misuse it for SELECT or DDL commands.

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