graphql_api_create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already established and the description is consistent with it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name: no idempotency information, no return-value behavior, no naming or duplicate constraints, and no statement about what happens on successful creation.

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?

A single 10-word sentence, 'Create a new GraphQL API item in a workspace,' with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word carries meaning — action, object, and location.

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 simple 3-parameter create with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. But it omits the prerequisite that the target workspace must exist, says nothing about what the call returns (no output schema exists to fill that gap), and offers no hint about behavior on duplicate display names.

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%; workspaceId, displayName, and description are all documented in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The tool description contributes no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (create), resource (GraphQL API item), and scope (in a workspace). The action alone differentiates it from the sibling set (graphql_api_update, graphql_api_delete, graphql_api_get, graphql_api_list), and 'in a workspace' correctly scopes it away from workspace_create. However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternative, and 'item' is a slightly generic noun.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: call this when you want a new GraphQL API. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that workspaceId must reference an existing workspace), and no pointer to graphql_api_update as the alternative for modifying an existing item.

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