nebula_execute_mutation

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'This tool is destructive' reinforces rather than adds. It does add useful context by stating 'returns no charts' and 'one mutation only', but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether changes are reversible or what happens on failed validation.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The critical usage condition is front-loaded, and the destructive/no-charts warning is placed prominently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple mutation tool with an output schema: it states the mutation role, safety gate, destructive nature, and output expectation. However, it lacks guidance on how 'statement' and 'graph' relate, and it could benefit from explicitly routing non-mutating users to nebula_execute_query.

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 by explaining the parameters. It mentions confirm_mutation as a safety gate, which is useful, but it gives no semantics for the required 'statement' parameter or the optional 'graph' parameter, leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('mutation'), and adds a scope constraint ('one mutation only'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools by the term 'mutation', though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, such as nebula_execute_query.

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 provides explicit gating conditions: 'only when NEBULA_ALLOW_MUTATIONS=true and confirm_mutation=true'. This is strong usage guidance for a destructive tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like nebula_execute_query for non-mutating work.

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