db.validate_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that statements are not executed, which is a key safety behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on success/failure (e.g., return format, errors), or any potential side effects like lock acquisition or permission checks during EXPLAIN.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the action, scope, and mechanism. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers core intent but omits important operational details such as return behavior, error handling, and the role of optional parameters. Given the sibling tools and complexity, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 the 'mode' values (SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) and implies the 'sql' parameter is the statement. However, it provides no guidance on the optional 'params' (bind parameters) or 'database' parameters, which are left entirely to the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statements'), and clearly distinguishes from execution by noting it validates 'without executing them'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool db.validate_insert, which may overlap for INSERT statements.

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 provides clear context: use when you want to validate SQL statements without executing them. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the mechanism (EXPLAIN without ANALYZE) implies a safe, non-mutating validation approach. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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