run_dml

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

With no annotations, the description assumes full transparency burden and does reveal two important behavioral traits: authorization gating and a mandatory confirmation flag. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, how it handles errors, whether multiple statements are permitted, or the irreversible/mutating nature of DML beyond the operation names themselves.

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, tightly written sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core operation scope and then includes the two most important invocation constraints, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 only two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: operation type, authorization limit, and mandatory confirmation. Still, for a potentially destructive DML tool, it leaves gaps around result behavior, error handling, and execution semantics, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It usefully explains that confirm must be true, but it provides no additional semantics for sql beyond implying it contains an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement. The sql parameter still lacks format guidance, constraints, or examples.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool executes INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements, giving a specific verb, resource category, and operation scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_select and run_ddl, and the role/confirm caveat adds functional specificity.

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 clearly indicates that this tool is for DML operations, which is an unambiguous use case distinct from the query, DDL, and diagnostic siblings. It also provides a clear precondition ('when role allows') and a mandatory invocation requirement ('requires confirm:true'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions.

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