graphql_generate_resolvers

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 restates the generation action and omits side effects like file writing, overwriting existing resolvers, API key authentication requirements, or whether an existing schema must already be present.

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. It is technically concise, but it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than useful concision.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what code generation actually does to the project. It does not mention target framework, generated file locations, overwrite behavior, or output format, leaving the tool's real effect underspecified despite complete parameter documentation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage across all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning about how type_name, operations, datasource, or api_key interact, but the schema-level descriptions are sufficient for basic invocation.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Generate', and a clear resource, 'resolver functions for GraphQL schema types and fields', which distinguishes it from siblings like graphql_generate_schema and gqlclient_generate_hooks. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related GraphQL tools such as graphql_generate_schema, gqlclient_generate_hooks, or graphql_optimize_queries. No exclusions, prerequisites, or workflow context are provided, so the agent must infer applicability solely from the name.

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