gqlfed_add_subgraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not explain side effects, what files or services are changed, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 phrase is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It reads more like a title than a functional definition, providing no explanatory value beyond the tool name.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what directory refers to, when api_key is needed, what operation is performed on the subgraph, or what a successful result looks like.

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?

The schema already describes 'directory' as 'Project directory,' and the description adds no additional meaning. The optional 'api_key' parameter remains undocumented both in the schema and in the description, leaving its purpose and necessity unclear.

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 a verb ('Add') and a resource ('federated subgraph'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like gqlfed_setup or gqlfed_optimize, and it leaves what 'add subgraph' concretely involves vague.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gqlfed_setup or gqlfed_optimize. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided, so an agent must guess when this tool is the correct choice.

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