graphql_mutate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the mutating nature and the server-side permission requirement, which are essential. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or other behavioral details beyond the write nature and the environment variable condition.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description provides the key permission context and clarifies the write nature, but it omits guidance on error handling, authentication specifics beyond the env var, and explicit differentiation from sibling tools. It is minimally adequate for a simple two-parameter tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'mutation' or 'variables' parameters beyond an example. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no explicit semantic detail about expected formats, required variables, or how variables map to the mutation.

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 'Execute a GraphQL mutation (write operation)', using a specific verb and resource, and explicitly labels it as a write operation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like graphql_query. The example mutation reinforces the purpose.

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 indicates when the tool is permitted (server must have GRAPHMCP_ALLOW_MUTATIONS=1) and labels it as a write operation, implying it should be used for mutations rather than queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use graphql_query for read operations'.

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