query-graphql-edge

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the query is syntax-checked before being sent, and the endpoint only sees published content. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description never hints that the document can contain mutations or otherwise change state — an agent reading only the prose would assume a safe read. The visibility/validation details earn credit, but the destructive capability is left undisclosed.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: the core action and return type come first, then the syntax-check behavior, then the endpoint-visibility caveat and schema-discovery pointer. Each sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format, validation behavior, endpoint semantics, and where to find the SDL. The one gap is that a destructive-capable tool should say what can be sent (query vs. mutation) and any auth expectations; otherwise it is complete.

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% and the schema already documents both 'query' (with an example document) and 'variables' (with a JSON-string example). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Executes a GraphQL query against the Sitecore "edge" endpoint'), the return format (JSON), and explicitly contrasts itself with the 'master'/preview path and points to introspection-graphql-edge for the SDL. An agent can pick this over query-graphql-master and introspection-graphql-edge without opening a 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 a clear selecting condition: 'edge' serves published content only, while 'master'/preview read the authoring database, which effectively tells the agent when to choose the sibling instead. It also routes schema discovery to introspection-graphql-edge. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., whether mutations are permitted here), so it falls just below the top band.

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