⚠️ SCHEMA CHANGE: Execute DDL (CREATE, ALTER, DROP). Modifies database structure. May lock tables.

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

With no annotations, the description warns that the tool modifies database structure and may lock tables, which are critical behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose potential dangers of DROP operations, transaction implications, or permission requirements.

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 that front-loads the warning and action. It is minimal but sufficient; however, it is a verbatim repeat of the title, which wastes an opportunity to add value.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: no explanation of return values, error handling, or parameter details. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description under-delivers.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (query, params, database_name). The agent must rely solely on the input schema, which lacks context like expected query syntax or parameter usage.

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 implies usage for schema changes only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like execute_read_query or execute_write_query. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the DDL focus is clear.

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