execute_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that each call writes an audit log and returns {status, rows_affected, seq}, providing key behavioral traits. It lacks details on authentication or error handling but is sufficient for a DML tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and mode, followed by side effects and return value. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, mode, side effects, and return format, which is adequate given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks parameter guidance and error semantics, leaving gaps for a tool with 2 parameters.

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 adds no explanation for the 'sql' or 'params' parameters. Users cannot infer how to format the SQL or use bind variables from the description.

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 it executes DML (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/MERGE), differentiating it from siblings like read_query (read-only) and execute_ddl (DDL).

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?

It explicitly says '仅读写模式可用' (only available in read-write mode), providing a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly recommend when to use this vs. alternatives like read_query or execute_ddl.

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