Write Neo4j Cypher

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that the tool returns a result summary (counters), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context about the return format.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action (execute write query) and specifies the return type (result summary/counters). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description completes the picture by explaining the return value (counters). It does not need to describe parameters since the schema covers them, and the behavior is fully disclosed.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions, and the description adds no extra parameter-level detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 executes a write Cypher query on the Neo4j database and returns a result summary. It distinguishes from sibling read_neo4j_cypher by explicitly limiting to write queries, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for write operations through the 'write' qualifier and sibling read_neo4j_cypher for reads. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative for read queries, but the context is clear enough.

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