query-graphql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses that the tool performs remote operations, that mutations modify persistent state, that authentication is inherited from the environment, and that failures return an errors list. These are the key behavioral facts an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 organized into clear warning, prerequisite, security, and return-value statements with no filler. It is slightly longer than a minimal two-sentence description, but each section contributes a distinct piece of operational knowledge.

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 four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential operating context: when to verify schema, mutation risk, authentication model, and expected return structure. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by warning that the required query string may contain operations that mutate persistent state, and by noting the return shape. It does not repeat schema descriptions, but provides meaningful semantic context for the query parameter.

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 action verb ('Execute') and target ('GraphQL operations ... against the federated system'), distinguishing this as the operation-execution tool while the sibling 'introspect-schema' is referenced only for schema verification. The clarification that it handles both queries and mutations further disambiguates its role.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling tool as a prerequisite step ('Verify schema structure using introspect-schema before executing complex queries'), and warns to execute mutations only when a state change is intended. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance for mutation operations.

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