graphql_generate_schema

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 reveals that schema/type generation occurs; it doesn't state whether files are written to disk, whether the schema is returned as output, whether existing outputs are overwritten, or whether the api_key parameter implies authentication requirements. For a generation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It is efficient and well-structured, though it could convey more information within the same concise format.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify the expected return value, whether api_key is ever needed, or what the generation workflow produces. It's minimally adequate for purpose but not for safe invocation.

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% — all four parameters (models, api_key, relationships, include_inputs) have descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'from data models' loosely maps to the required models parameter but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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') with a clear resource ('GraphQL type definitions and schema') and source ('from data models'). The GraphQL qualifier distinguishes it from other schema-generating tools like schema_generate_migration and tenant_design_schema, and the schema focus differentiates it from the sibling graphql_generate_resolvers. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives. With several schema-generation siblings (graphql_generate_resolvers, schema_generate_migration, tenant_design_schema, proto_generate_schema) plus GraphQL-specific tools, an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice. The absence is not misleading, but it's entirely unguided.

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