gqlclient_setup_apollo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate ... setup' without explaining side effects such as writing files, installing dependencies, modifying project configuration, or requiring an API key for Pro/Enterprise. This is a meaningful gap for a scaffolding/setup tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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 setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what files or configuration are generated, whether the api_key is required for certain features, or what the expected result is. An agent has too little information to predict the tool's impact.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but because the schema handles it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Generate Apollo Client setup with cache.' It clearly identifies Apollo Client as the target, which distinguishes it from the sibling gqlclient_setup_urql. However, 'with cache' is vague about what the setup actually includes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for Apollo Client projects. But the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention the alternative gqlclient_setup_urql or gqlclient_generate_hooks. An agent would have to infer the appropriate selection from the tool name.

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