update_case_owner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only marks the operation as a GraphQL mutation. It does not mention permissions, side effects, validation rules, owner value format, or what happens if the case or owner is invalid.

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 very short and contains no filler; the example payload is placed efficiently. However, the prose is fragmented and the redundant 'mutation updateCaseOwner' phrasing consumes space that could have been used for a human-readable explanation.

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 is incomplete. It fails to explain the accepted owner format, whether the update replaces or appends, and any related prerequisite steps, leaving substantial gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it safely.

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?

Although the schema describes both parameters, the 'input' parameter's schema is opaque ('GraphQL: UpdateCaseOwnerInput!'). The description adds value by showing an example input object with caseId and owner fields, giving the agent concrete syntax for invoking the tool.

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 only restates the operation as 'mutation updateCaseOwner' plus an example payload, without explicitly stating that it changes the owner of a case. The example variables make the purpose inferable, but the prose does not provide a clear verb+resource description or distinguish it from related case-update tools.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_case, close_case, or assign_incident. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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