write_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that this tool modifies data, that it may have destructive effects (especially DELETE), that it requires a specific connection, or that it is not safe for read-only purposes. The word 'write' in the title hints at mutability, but the description lacks explicit warnings.

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 a single sentence, short and to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and the allowed query types. No fluff, but it could be more structured with explicit warnings or usage context.

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?

The tool is a mutation tool (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) with no annotations and no output schema. It is part of a large set of siblings that includes many other query execution tools. The description is thin: it does not explain the behavioral implications (e.g., data modification, irreversible changes), prerequisites (e.g., an existing connection), or how it differs from 'execute_query' or 'execute_in_transaction'. Given the safety implications of write queries, this is incomplete.

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 (query, connectionId). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not mention that the query must be a write query or any additional constraints like transaction handling.

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 specifies the verb (Execute) and the resource (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE queries on a specific database connection). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'execute_query', 'execute_in_transaction', or 'explain_query', which might also execute SQL statements.

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 states what the tool does (execute write queries) but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'execute_query' (which might handle reads) or 'execute_in_transaction' (which handles transactional execution). It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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