execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it specifies allowed statement types (INSERT/UPDATE), rejected statement types (DELETE/DDL), return values (affectedRows and insertId), and operational constraints (single statement, local database). It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the essential mutation behavior.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific constraints and implementation details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about allowed operations, parameter usage, and return values without any redundancy or 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, constraints, parameter usage, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error scenarios, but given the complexity and lack of structured fields, it provides substantial contextual information to guide proper tool usage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the relationship between sql and params parameters ('Use ? placeholders and pass values via the `params` array'), clarifies the purpose of the schema parameter ('Use the `schema` parameter or fully-qualified table names'), and provides implementation guidance that helps understand how parameters work together.

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 ('Run a single INSERT or UPDATE statement'), the target resource ('against the local FO MySQL database'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query' by specifying allowed statement types. It provides precise verb+resource+scope differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for INSERT/UPDATE statements) and when not to use it (DELETE, DDL, and other statement types are rejected). It also provides clear alternatives by mentioning the sibling tool 'query' implicitly through contrast, and gives specific implementation guidance about schema usage and parameter binding.

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