Xray Graphql Mutation

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is reduced. But it adds no behavioral context whatsoever: no auth/permission notes, no statement that arbitrary mutations can alter or remove data, and no error semantics for an escape-hatch tool.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification for a generic mutation entry point.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the essentials are covered by structured fields. For a generic GraphQL escape hatch, however, the description omits useful navigational context — e.g., that the schema can be discovered via xray_graphql_schema or that queries should use xray_graphql_query — leaving a gap for correct invocation.

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% (both mutation and variables are documented inline), so the schema carries the burden and a 3 baseline applies. The description adds no format, syntax, or variable-binding guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ("Run an Xray GraphQL mutation") and scopes it with "not covered by a dedicated tool," which meaningfully separates it from the many dedicated xray_create_*/update_*/delete_* siblings. It is clear but does not name the closest sibling (xray_graphql_query) it complements.

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?

"Not covered by a dedicated tool" implies a fallback condition, so the agent can infer when to reach for it rather than a purpose-built mutation tool. However, it names no explicit alternative, gives no exclusions, and never mentions the sibling xray_graphql_query or xray_graphql_schema, leaving selection to inference.

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