execute_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the sequential execution behavior, which is valuable. However, it lacks critical details like transaction handling (e.g., auto-commit, rollback on error), permissions required, or potential side-effects (e.g., data modification), leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Execute a multi-statement SQL script against a database') and adds essential behavioral context ('All statements are executed in sequence') without any wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that can mutate data. It lacks details on error handling, result format (beyond output_format param), or transactional behavior, which are crucial for safe usage. However, the purpose and basic execution flow are clear.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'script' contains multiple statements, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('execute'), resource ('multi-statement SQL script'), and target ('against a database'), with explicit mention of sequential execution. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_query (likely single statement) and describe_table/list_tables (metadata queries).

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 usage for multi-statement scripts (vs. single statements), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single queries) or name alternatives like execute_query, leaving some ambiguity compared to siblings.

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