move_graphql

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context that mutations are allowed only if writes are enabled and that the accepted document is arbitrary. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and followed by routing and a precondition. The schema reference is a single line and useful; no sentence is wasted.

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 generic GraphQL runner, the description includes routing, mutation gating, and a schema reference link. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed; a small gap is not spelling out the broader side-effect implications of arbitrary mutations, but annotations cover the destructive profile.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the query or variables format; the schema's note about AWSJSON arguments already covers the subtle part.

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 opening line 'Run an arbitrary GraphQL document against the Move API' names a specific verb, resource, and scope, making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the typed siblings by stating 'this is for fields they do not expose.'

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use the typed tools first; this is for fields they do not expose.' It also adds a precondition for mutations ('writes to be enabled'), so an agent knows not only when to call it but what must be true before doing so.

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