⚠️ SCHEMA CHANGE: Execute DDL SQL with params.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing potential side effects. It only says 'Execute DDL SQL' without warning about destructive actions (e.g., dropping tables), irreversibility, or required permissions. The lack of any behavioral disclosure makes it highly opaque.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with a warning prefix. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and does not convey essential information about parameters or usage. It is appropriately short but not well-organized for clarity.

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 tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, provide examples, or mention potential errors or constraints. The minimal text fails to give users sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema defines three parameters (query, params, database_name) but the description provides no explanation for any of them. It mentions 'with params' but does not clarify their purpose (e.g., placeholders) or the role of database_name. With 0% parameter description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that read/write queries should use other tools, nor does it explain scenarios where DDL is appropriate. The only hint is the 'SCHEMA CHANGE' label, but it lacks explicit direction.

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