superops_custom_mutation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it's a 'mutation' (write operation) and 'GraphQL', but lacks details on error handling, side effects, required authentication, or rate limits. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary details.

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 simple generic tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context adequately but lacks behavioral details (output, error handling). It is complete enough for basic use but could be more robust.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides ('The GraphQL mutation string' and 'Variables'). 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?

The description clearly states it runs a custom GraphQL mutation for advanced write operations not covered by standard tools. It uses specific verbs ('run', 'write') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic custom endpoint.

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 provides context ('advanced write operations not covered by standard tools') indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like using standard tools first.

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