mutate_graph

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'arbitrary Cypher write operations' which implies a high-risk, unrestricted mutation capability, and mentions creating/updating. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or validation behavior, leaving the agent to infer these from Cypher knowledge. This is a moderate disclosure, better than a generic description but still lacking security context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Execute arbitrary Cypher write operations') and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 an arbitrary execution tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and usage boundaries (beyond specialized tools). However, it omits details about error handling, transactionality, and safety pitfalls of running arbitrary Cypher. Given the tool's complexity and potential impact, this is a minor gap, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to select it correctly in most cases.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (cypher and params) with exact descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 arbitrary Cypher write operations for creating/updating nodes, relationships, and properties. This is a specific verb+resource couple (execute Cypher writes) and explicitly distinguishes itself from specialized tools, making the 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 explicitly directs use for 'operations beyond specialized tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly naming alternatives (the specialized sibling tools). This tells the agent to prefer specialized tools when available and fall back on this only for arbitrary/untracked write operations.

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