graphql_request

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: credentials are injected automatically, meaning the agent does not need to supply auth headers, and variables are wired through. It stops short of saying whether mutation responses include partial errors or whether injected credentials can be overridden via the headers parameter.

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 short sentences, action first, no filler. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous ('injects variables' when variables is a caller-supplied parameter), which costs a point but not 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?

For a tool that can execute destructive mutations and has no output schema, the description says nothing about what comes back (GraphQL data/errors envelope) or how errors surface. Credential injection is covered, but URL resolution for relative paths and failure behavior are not.

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 83%, with descriptions on url, query, headers, variables, and operationName, so the schema carries most of the meaning. The description adds nothing about the undocumented timeout parameter or the interaction between the variables parameter and the claimed automatic variable injection. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear specific verb (send) plus resource (GraphQL query/mutation) and target (GraphQL endpoint), which unambiguously identifies it as the GraphQL transport rather than a REST call. It never names the closest sibling, http_request, so the distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over http_request, ws_connect, or a suite/test tool, and no mention of prerequisites such as which environment's credentials are injected or whether an active project is required. The agent must guess the selection criteria from the name alone.

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