run_script_with_vars

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states what the tool does at a high level. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, transactional behavior (though the sandbox parameter description covers rollback), or how variables are processed. The description adds little beyond the schema parameter descriptions.

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 very short (8 words) and front-loaded with the core action, which is concise. However, it omits necessary details that could be added without bloating, such as parameter implications or usage notes. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover how the tool behaves with different parameter settings, error scenarios, or connection handling. The schema provides some parameter descriptions, but the overall context for a data-modifying tool is lacking.

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 description adds no meaning to parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 60% schema description coverage, the baseline is low, but the description fails to explain how the 'variables' object maps to SET statements, the role of 'script', or the significance of 'sandbox' and 'connection'. It relies entirely on schema documentation.

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 prepends SET @var statements and runs a script, which defines its purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'run_script' which likely lacks variable injection. The name suggests the difference, but explicit differentiation would earn 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_script', 'split_script', or 'test_script'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use. This forces the agent to infer usage from name and schema alone.

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