gograph_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it is read-only with no side effects, and notes the prerequisite of graph.json and build command. No contradictions.

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?

Description is front-loaded with core purpose, then prerequisites, behavioral notes, usage guidelines, and return format. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (many sibling tools, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, prerequisites, behavioral traits, exact usage guidance, and return fields. No 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 100% (both parameters described in schema). Description adds the mutual exclusivity hint ('Requires either symbol or uncommitted=true') but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states tool summarizes scope and risk profile of a change, listing specific elements (symbols, tests, routes, env vars, SQL). It distinguishes from siblings with explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections.

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 (post-edit verification), when not to use (boundary enforcement, pre-edit planning), and provides alternatives (gograph_boundaries, gograph_plan). Also includes prerequisites (requires .gograph/graph.json and prior build step).

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