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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description still adds real value by warning that the call can mutate data, that the endpoint is action.parabol.co/graphql, that the token must carry the required scope, and that arbitrary operations are permitted. It stops short of describing failure behavior or rate limits, but the auth/scope disclosure and mutation warning go meaningfully beyond the annotation.

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 highest-stakes information (potential mutation) is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by purpose, then the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 passthrough GraphQL escape hatch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, endpoint, and auth requirements. It could say more about how errors or GraphQL-level failures are surfaced, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that variables are optional and that the query may be a mutation document — a marginal clarification rather than new syntax or format detail.

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 names a concrete verb and resource — run an arbitrary GraphQL operation (query or mutation) against action.parabol.co/graphql — and explicitly positions itself as an escape hatch for operations the curated tools don't cover. An agent can immediately separate it from siblings like parabol_query or update_task without opening either schema.

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 states when to use it (operations not covered by curated tools), when not to (read-only calls) and names the alternative explicitly: "Prefer parabol_query for read-only calls." That is a complete routing rule with a named sibling, leaving nothing to inference.

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