execute_confirmed_mutation

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

With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description, and it discloses non-obvious behavior: previews are single-use even when execution fails, and the preview must be unexpired. The 'exact' wording hints at hash matching as a guard. However, it doesn't say what happens on mismatch or expiry (error shape, retryability), and it never explicitly states the mutation is irreversible.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The precondition is front-loaded, and the single-use caveat, the most surprising trait, is placed second with emphasis. Nothing is wasted.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers preconditions and single-use semantics well but leaves gaps: failure/error behavior, what a successful execution returns, and explicit per-parameter meaning. An agent can call it, but will be guessing about outcomes.

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 needs to carry parameter meaning. It obliquely explains previewHash via 'one exact ... preview' and confirmation via 'fresh explicit user confirmation,' and operationId via 'one ... mutation,' but never maps those meanings to the parameter names. The format constraints (uuid, 64-hex) are in the schema but their purpose is left to inference.

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 says a specific verb and resource — 'Execute one exact, unexpired mutation preview' — which is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from the many preview_* siblings by framing it as the execution step. It stops short of naming the sibling that produces the preview, but the role is clear.

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?

It defines clear preconditions: the preview must be exact, unexpired, and preceded by fresh explicit user confirmation. That tells an agent when this tool is appropriate without spelling out 'do not call this to create a preview, use preview_* instead.' No explicit exclusions are given, which keeps it just below the top score.

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