update_reference_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only labels the operation as a 'mutation' and lists variables; it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, response format, or what exactly gets modified. The truncated example hints at filtering and ordering but stops mid-string.

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 reasonably short and front-loads the domain with 'Reference Lists · mutation updateReferenceList,' but the variable list redundantly repeats schema property names, and the example JSON is truncated mid-value. The structure is a bare GraphQL summary rather than a purpose-built, organized 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 complex mutation with seven parameters, nested input objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It provides an incomplete example and no behavioral detail, leaving the agent without essential context for correct selection and invocation.

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 reported at 100%, but the property descriptions are minimal type labels like 'GraphQL: String' and 'GraphQL: UpdateReferenceListInput!'. The description's example JSON adds some structural context for nested parameters such as columnSelector, filter, and order, which is useful, but it omits customer_slug and is cut off, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 opens with 'Reference Lists · mutation updateReferenceList,' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and operation type. It does not clearly state what the mutation does or how it differs from siblings like update_reference_list_row and update_reference_list_column, and the remainder is a variable list plus truncated example.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_reference_list, update_reference_list_row, or update_reference_list_column. The description provides only variable names and an example, with no contextual guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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