gqlfed_optimize

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only names the action and the Pro requirement, without disclosing whether the tool mutates files, requires api_key, produces a report, or has side effects.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the terseness contributes to incompleteness rather than redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too sparse: api_key is unexplained, prerequisites are unstated, and the expected outcome is unclear. The 'Pro feature' tag is the only extra context beyond the bare operation.

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 describes directory with 'Project directory' but leaves api_key undocumented, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With only 50% schema coverage, the missing api_key semantics are a real gap.

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?

States the operation (optimize) and the specific resource (federation query planning), which distinguishes it from sibling setup and add_subgraph tools. The 'Pro feature' hint adds useful context. It stops short of detailing what the optimization entails, so not 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as graphql_optimize_queries, gqlfed_setup, or gqlfed_add_subgraph. The 'Pro feature' tag implies a licensing gate but does not help an agent choose between alternatives.

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