gograph_mutate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context beyond that, explaining the two analysis modes (precise graph vs. standard), what mutations are detected (++/+=, pointer-alias, etc.), and that it re-runs analysis after source edits, all while reaffirming read-only nature.

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 well-structured with an opening sentence, then explanatory details, then usage guidance, and finally return info. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. It is not overly long and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned ('mutation locations and indirect mutator method names when applicable'). It also explains the two analysis modes and the refresh behavior, providing a complete picture for an agent to understand inputs, behavior, and outputs.

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 schema provides a description for the single 'field' parameter (e.g., 'Status'), but the description adds important context on how to use it: 'Use Type.Field to exclude same-named fields on unrelated types'. This goes beyond the schema's basic example, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 finds 'struct-field and package-global mutation sites' with a specific verb 'find' and resource 'mutation sites'. It distinguishes from siblings by excluding field declarations (gograph_fields) and whole-struct initialization (gograph_literals) in the NOT TO USE section.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, providing clear context for diagnosing state changes or auditing mutability, and explicitly excludes use for field declarations or whole-struct initialization. It also advises using Type.Field to avoid false positives.

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