execute

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

The description contradicts the idempotentHint annotation: it describes executing arbitrary SQL that includes non-idempotent operations like INSERT/DELETE, while the annotation declares idempotentHint true. This is a direct contradiction, so the transparency score must be 1 per rubric.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes critical warnings and transaction usage without any filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 output schema and two simple parameters, the description adequately covers the action, return type, transaction handling, and safety warnings. However, the contradiction with idempotency annotation and the lack of clarity about SELECT handling (though 'arbitrary SQL' might imply it) leave minor gaps, preventing a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (sql and tx_handle) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds only transactional context for tx_handle and mentions the return format, but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it executes arbitrary SQL (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL) and returns affected row count, distinguishing it from siblings like query (for SELECT) and dedicated mutation tools (insert_rows, update_rows, delete_rows). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions optional tx_handle for transaction execution and warns about dangerous operations, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over dedicated tools or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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