execute_ddl

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions DROP and 'delete database objects', which signals destructive potential. However, it does not warn about irreversibility, locking, or permissions, leaving some behavioral gaps. The explicit mention of DROP earns a middle score.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and what operations are possible. It lacks details about return values or side effects like transaction behavior, but these are less critical for DDL execution. The description is functionally complete for agent comprehension.

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 for the single 'sql' parameter is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter's meaning. The description repeats that the parameter is a DDL SQL statement without adding extra formatting, syntax, or constraints. This matches the baseline of 3, as the description adds no meaningful value 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 uses a specific verb ('execute') with a clear resource ('DDL statements'), lists concrete examples (CREATE, ALTER, DROP), and states the overall purpose (create, modify, delete database objects). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query, insert, update, and delete, which handle DML.

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 establishes when this tool should be used: for DDL statements that manage database objects. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous—users should choose this for schema operations, and other tools for data manipulation. No exclusions are needed given the semantic clarity.

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