Save editor SQL as a .sql file in the SQL Editor folder; enable overwrite to replace an existing file, otherwise the result returns exists so the app can ask first.
Save the editor's SQL as a .sql file in the SQL Editor's folder.
An existing file is only replaced with ``overwrite``; otherwise the result
says ``exists`` so the app can ask first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not carrying the full safety burden. It meaningfully adds the overwrite gate and the 'exists' result string, telling the agent that a collision will not silently clobber the file. It does not disclose success-return shape or folder/auth details.
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 the action and immediately followed by the one behavior an agent could get wrong. No filler.
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?
With no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description covers the mutation semantics but not the return values on success, the file naming rules, or where the SQL Editor folder resolves to. Adequate for the core call, incomplete around edges.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `overwrite` well (default replacement gated by the flag) and implies the roles of `name` and `sql`, but gives no format details such as whether the extension is auto-appended or whether paths are accepted.
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 and resource: saving the editor's SQL as a .sql file into the SQL Editor's folder. This is clearly distinguishable from file-oriented siblings like sql_editor_open_file or sql_editor_files, but the description never names an alternative to route against.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'the editor's SQL', which frames it as an in-editor save action, and the overwrite clause hints at the intended flow. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or referenced alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.