run_script

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'multi-statement' and the confirmed flag, but does not disclose transaction behavior (sandbox parameter), error handling, result set handling, or performance implications. Significant 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 + one hint), but it is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-informative, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description leaves many questions unanswered: return format, error behavior, transaction details, performance considerations. Incomplete for practical use.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters documented in schema). Description adds only a single hint about 'confirmed' (already in schema). Does not explain sandbox, connection, delimiter, or database parameters beyond what schema provides. Fails to compensate for missing descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Execute a multi-statement SQL script' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like execute_batch or test_script, so not a 5.

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?

Provides guidance on using 'confirmed=true' for committing writes, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., execute, run_script_with_vars). Lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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