gqlclient_generate_hooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a file-generation action but does not state what files are created, whether existing files are overwritten, what the output looks like, or what 'Pro feature' means operationally (e.g., whether the call fails without an api_key).

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 seven words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting meaningful detail about parameters and behavior.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description leaves important gaps: the role of api_key, the Pro-feature gating implications, and the exact relationship between 'directory' and the generated hooks. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation or expected outcomes.

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 50%: only 'directory' is documented ('Project directory'), while 'api_key' has no schema description and the tool description adds nothing about it. The unexplained api_key is especially confusing given the tool's simple stated purpose, and the description makes no effort to clarify when or why it is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('typed query/mutation hooks'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like w3types_generate_hooks or gqlclient_setup_apollo, so an agent must infer which hook-generation tool applies to which stack.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gqlclient_setup_apollo, gqlclient_setup_urql, or graphql_generate_resolvers. The parenthetical '(Pro feature)' hints at entitlement requirements but provides no usage context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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