execute_mutation

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

The description adds the important behavioral trait that mutations are not idempotent and can have side effects, which goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint: false). This is valuable context for safe usage, though it does not cover other aspects like authentication or rate limits.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the primary action; the second provides semantic guidance and a warning about side effects. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

While the description is adequate for a straightforward tool with high schema coverage, it lacks details on return values or error behavior. Since no output schema exists, some description of the response would improve completeness, but the openWorldHint suggests variability.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning to the parameters beyond their schema descriptions; it merely restates that it sends a mutation string.

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 it sends a raw GraphQL mutation string. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_query by noting functional identity and semantic clarity, and from execute_typed_mutation by being 'raw'. The verb 'send' and resource 'mutation string' are specific.

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 description provides guidance to use the tool when semantically appropriate, mentioning it's identical to execute_query. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where the typed variant should be used, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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