authoring-graphql

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the document is syntax-checked before sending, that it reads/writes the authoring databases (unpublished content visible, mutations immediate), and that the API forbids subscriptions and GET. These are operationally important traits an agent cannot derive from the destructiveHint/openWorldHint flags alone.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return format, then layers contrast, routing, and transport constraints. Every sentence contributes, though the closing transport remark ('which this tool does for you') is mildly chatty.

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 generic pass-through GraphQL executor with no output schema, the description covers the return format, safety implications, sibling preference, and transport constraints. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters carry concrete examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for 'query'/'variables' beyond what is already documented, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Executes any query or mutation against the Sitecore Authoring and Management GraphQL API') and the return format ('returns the data as JSON'). It explicitly contrasts with the Edge endpoint and routes to typed authoring-* siblings, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit preference rule ('Prefer a typed authoring-* tool when one covers the operation; use this for the rest of the schema') and names authoring-introspect-schema for the SDL. When-to-use and the fallback role are both stated, nothing left to inference.

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