sql_editor_execute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — writes and DDL are permitted, and it is limited to a single confirmed statement — but says nothing about permissions, transactions, side effects, or 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by the parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, write-capable tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not say what happens on failure, whether execution is transactional, how database context is resolved, or what max_rows truncation means.

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% for all three parameters (sql, database, max_rows), so the description bears the full burden and gives almost nothing. 'Single statement' loosely constrains the sql argument, but database selection and the max_rows default of 1000 are entirely unexplained.

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?

Specific verb (Run) and resource (a single SQL statement) with an explicit scope qualifier: single statement, user-confirmed in the SQL Editor app. It distinguishes itself from the many query_/pipeline siblings by that single-statement scope, though it never names the closest alternative (run_sql).

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?

Implies when to use it (a statement the user has already confirmed) and imposes an implicit constraint (one statement at a time, no batches), but gives no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance despite siblings like run_sql, sql_editor_query, and sql_editor_ask existing.

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