describe_graph_catalog_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns metadata and optionally validates an action, but does not disclose what validation entails (e.g., side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it performs any external checks). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence packs the main purpose and optional capability without any wasted words. It is easy to scan and immediately understand.

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?

The output schema handles return values, and the tool is conceptually simple. However, the description omits necessary context about the 'action' parameter and the validation behavior, leaving an agent without full understanding of how to invoke it correctly. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references tool_name ('single catalog tool') and action ('specific action') without explaining allowed values, formats, or relationships. The agent cannot confidently construct the tool_name or interpret 'action' (e.g., is it an HTTP method, a sub-operation, or a validation flag?).

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 the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'metadata for a single catalog tool', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_graph_catalog_operations' (which lists all). It also adds the optional 'validate a specific action' functionality, making the tool's scope precise.

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 phrase 'single catalog tool' implies this is for one tool rather than listing all, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like list_graph_catalog_operations or discover_graph_operations. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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