graphql_batch_query

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as concurrency behavior, error handling, rate limits, or result structure. The batch nature is already captured in the purpose, leaving the agent without insight into how the tool operates beyond being read-only.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the tool has 5 parameters and zero schema descriptions. The description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation: it omits optional parameter semantics, usage context, and any note on how batch execution behaves. The agent would likely need to infer too much.

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 for explaining parameters. It implicitly covers query_string and variables_list via the phrase 'query against many variable sets', but completely ignores key_field, operation_name, and max_concurrency. Parameter names alone are insufficient for correct invocation, especially for key_field which is ambiguous.

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 'Execute one GraphQL query against many variable sets' uses a specific verb ('Execute'), identifies the resource ('GraphQL query'), and clarifies the scope ('many variable sets'), which clearly distinguishes it from single-query tools like graphql_query and schema retrieval tools like graphql_schema.

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 implies usage for batch execution when there are many variable sets, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over graphql_query or other alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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