superops_custom_mutation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'write operations,' which implies mutation, but it does not warn about potential destructiveness, irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects of executing arbitrary GraphQL mutations. This is a significant gap for a tool that can run any mutation.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage qualification follows efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 low-level, open-ended mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response will look like, warn about the risks of arbitrary mutations, or clarify that variables are optional. An agent receives only the barest sketch of how to use this safely or effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already states; it merely labels the action as a mutation. It is adequate but provides no additional semantic value.

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 clear verb ('Run'), resource ('SuperOps.ai API'), and operation type ('GraphQL mutation'), and specifies it is for advanced write operations. It does not explicitly name the sibling superops_custom_query, but the mutation/query distinction is implicit in the GraphQL terms, giving adequate differentiation from standard tools.

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?

The phrase 'For advanced write operations not covered by standard tools' conveys when this tool should be used and implies that standard tools should be the first choice. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use it, falling slightly short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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