list_mutations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details: returns empty list if no mutation type, and search filter behavior. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifying the output format and edge case. No redundant information exists.

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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, return format (type info), edge case (empty list), and filter option. It is fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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% for both parameters. The description mentions the search filter ('Use search= to filter by name') but does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists all root mutation fields, gives examples of mutation names (createUser, updatePost), and specifies what each entry shows (return type and argument types). It also notes the behavior when there is no mutation type. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queries or list_types.

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 how to filter using 'search=', but does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_queries or list_subscriptions. It lacks explicit context for when-not-to-use or comparisons with siblings, though the purpose is clear enough for simple listing.

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