write_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses safety guards (WHERE requirement, DDL blocked) which indicate operational protections. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether this is a mutation with no rollback, any permissions/auth requirements, or what the output shape is. The safety restrictions give some transparency but leave gaps.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with zero wasted words. Every clause carries information about allowed operations and constraints. It's ideal front-loaded specification that an agent can parse quickly.

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 tool with 1 free-form string parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential constraint (which statement types are allowed) but doesn't explain return behavior. Given it has an output schema, the return format is presumably structured elsewhere. The missing piece is parameter format guidance—what SQL dialect, escaping expectations, multi-statement handling—which would help complete the picture for a query execution tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (query), which is a free-form string. The description does not elaborate on the query parameter's format, escaping requirements, or valid syntax beyond the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE restriction. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how to format the query string, but it provides no such guidance.

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 tool runs INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE queries with specific verbs indicating the write operation. It distinguishes from sibling 'read_query' by explicitly stating it handles writes (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) while implying read_query is for reads, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly. The resource is a database query, and the specific operation types are named clearly.

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 explicit usage constraints: UPDATE/DELETE require WHERE, and DDL is blocked. This tells the agent what queries are permissible. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over read_query or other write-alternatives in the sibling list, though the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE scope plus the 'DDL blocked' guard gives clear boundaries.

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