gograph_mutate

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

Adds context beyond annotations by stating it's 100% local, read-only, no side effects, no authorization needed, no rate limits, and zero destructive modifications. All annotations are consistent and reinforced.

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?

Well-structured with sections (DESCRIPTION, BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, USAGE GUIDELINES, COMPLETENESS) and front-loaded key information. Slightly verbose but still clear and efficient.

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?

Lacks output schema, and description only minimally explains return format (file and line locations). Provides an example but omits details like response structure or pagination. Inconsistency about parameters reduces completeness.

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?

The description mentions 'Requires 'struct' and 'field' parameters', but the input schema only includes 'field' as required. This inconsistency misleads about required parameters, despite high schema coverage and example usage.

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 clearly states the tool traces and audits state-mutation and assignment points for a specific struct field, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'gograph_fields' by explicitly mentioning direct struct layouts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (diagnosing state bugs, checking data mutability, analyzing struct field lifetimes) and when not to (use 'gograph_fields' instead), providing a clear alternative.

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