execute_dartql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry-run default and supports features like template vars and multi-statement, but does not describe return values, error handling, or atomicity. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and concise. It conveys key points efficiently, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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?

Despite moderate complexity and no output schema, the description omits return values (e.g., affected row count) and error behavior. For a destructive tool, safety is noted (dry-run) but completeness 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context about dry-run default and query syntax features, but does not substantially augment the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 executes DartQL UPDATE/DELETE statements, specifying its core purpose. It also lists supported features (template vars, array literals, comments, multi-statement), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform individual CRUD operations.

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 mentions dry-run by default and supports multi-statement, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like batch_update_tasks or update_task. Usage context is implied but not directly compared.

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