graphql_mutation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does well: it discloses the two-step delete confirmation protocol, the source-vs-active-source guard that rejects rather than writes to the wrong place, and the write/mutation scope. Missing explicit auth/permissions or error-response detail, but the safety behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences covering scope, delete workflow, and the source guard. Dense but each sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the confirm gating for destructive deletes, and the source-mismatch safety check. Nested variables and exact error/permission semantics are thin, but the critical callable behavior is present.

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 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters including the source enum and confirm optionality. The description reinforces source ('DECLARA SIEMPRE ... source') and the delete/confirm relationship but adds little syntactic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Ejecuta una mutacion GraphQL (createRecord, updateRecord, deleteRecord) contra la fuente ACTIVA.' The write scope plus the 'ACTIVA' qualifier distinguishes it cleanly from graphql_query and graphql_batch.

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 concrete when-to-use procedural guidance: for deletion, call first without confirm to get the warning, then again with confirm:true and the same id. It does not explicitly route to sibling alternatives (graphql_query/graphql_batch), but the delete workflow and the source-mismatch rejection rule are strong context.

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