graph_api_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the operation is a POST (implying mutation) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, required authentication, error behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that can act on any edge.

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?

One sentence with an example, no filler. The generic scope is front-loaded and the example grounds the abstract 'edge' parameter. Every word contributes.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no param-level descriptions, this is too thin. It omits how to authenticate, what edge formats are valid, what data should look like, and what side effects to expect. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the operational context needed to call it correctly is largely absent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for 'edge' ('{id}/feed'), which gives some format guidance, but says nothing about 'data' – what it should contain, how it maps to the edge, or optionality beyond the schema default. The agent is left to guess the payload structure.

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 (POST) and resource (any Graph API edge), with an example. The word 'generic' clearly distinguishes it from the specific POST operations among the siblings, and the sibling graph_api_get/graph_api_delete are differentiated by the HTTP verb.

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?

The description implies this is the catch-all for Graph API POST operations, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over specific tools like publish_page_post. There are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions, so usage context is only implied.

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