graphql_api_update

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

Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds some useful context by narrowing the update scope to name/description, but it does not disclose partial-update behavior, permission requirements, or whether omitting both optional fields is a no-op or an error. This is acceptable given the annotations but not particularly rich.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the mutable fields. Every word 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 simple update tool with a fully covered schema and non-destructive/non-read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits the operational detail that displayName and description are optional and that at least one should probably be supplied to make a meaningful update. No output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description simply re-expresses the displayName and description fields as 'name or description' without adding extra semantics such as 'at least one must be provided' or 'unspecified fields remain unchanged.'

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a concrete resource ('GraphQL API item'), and the exact scope of what can be changed ('name or description'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like graphql_api_create, graphql_api_delete, graphql_api_get, and graphql_api_execute_query.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing GraphQL API's metadata, nor does it contrast with graphql_api_create for new items or graphql_api_get_definition for reading. Usage context is only implied by the word 'Update'.

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