sql_editor_ask

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail: the reply is delivered asynchronously to the editor's inbox rather than returned inline. Beyond that it says nothing about auth, latency, or lifecycle, so it is only modestly additive.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. Efficiently sized, though the profile sentence is somewhat loosely attached.

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 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description explains almost none of the inputs (only 'profile') and does not describe what the caller receives. The async inbox pointer helps but does not close the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains one parameter ('profile' with fast/balanced/thorough), leaving sql, database, question, selected, editor_id, and last_result completely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Answer a SQL Editor chat question') and clarifies the delivery channel ('reply arrives in the editor's inbox'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as sql_editor_assistant, sql_editor_inbox, or notebook_ask.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives among the many sibling ask/assistant/inbox tools. The only conditional guidance concerns the 'profile' parameter, not tool selection, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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