database

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It details the safety tier (ordinary writes, approval), the hard block for whole-database wipe, and the behavior of each sub-operation (e.g., 'a missing or empty WHERE would clear the whole table').

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections, bullet points for operations, and separate warnings. It is organized for readability, though some sentences could be tightened. Overall, it earns its length.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, multiple operations, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive coverage: it explains all operations, parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and usage guidance. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter in the context of specific operations: e.g., fields for add_direct, where for delete, sql for sql operation, exclude_dupes for add_direct. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it performs 'Direct database operations on individual records' and lists specific sub-operations (add_direct, delete, sql, etc.), making the verb and resource obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'log' and 'query' by specifying that it bypasses scoring and allows raw SQL.

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 guidance on when to use alternatives, e.g., 'Prefer log's log_qso/ENTER' for add_direct. It also warns about conditions for safe usage, such as the need for N3FJP_ALLOW_DB_WIPE for destructive operations, and notes that certain operations are blocked without the environment variable.

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