digiforma_graphql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It openly discloses that the tool supports arbitrary queries and mutations, signaling there are no guardrails and that operations may be mutating. It also reveals introspection is permitted. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error shapes, but for a raw GraphQL client the core behavioral traits are stated.

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?

Two purposeful sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the example is integrated without bloating the text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 GraphQL fallback tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage with an example, and the schema covers parameters. It does not mention the response envelope or authentication, but these are less critical given the tool's generic nature and the absence of an output schema. Slightly more detail on response behavior would be needed for a 5.

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 beyond the schema by illustrating a valid query document with an introspection example, clarifying what sort of string belongs in the query parameter. The variables parameter is not elaborated, but the schema already describes it fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Run an arbitrary GraphQL query or mutation against the Digiforma API.' It clearly distinguishes itself as the raw/fallback tool from the convenience siblings by saying it is for anything not covered below and for introspection.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for anything not covered by the convenience tools below' and for introspection queries. This is an explicit condition that also implies the when-not: use a convenience tool when it covers the operation. It even provides an introspection query example.

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