rsc_execute_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent while adding substantial context beyond them: the mutation_blocked error contract, three credential-source options, the single-line formatting requirement, and an explicit data-minimization caveat that raw responses are unfiltered. That is well past what the annotations carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the mutation restriction, then credentials, args, and return shape in clear blocks. Slight redundancy: the mutation_blocked result is explained at the top and again in the Returns section, and the no-newlines warning is verbose for its importance.

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 two-param, no-output-schema tool this covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it refuses, how to authenticate, how to format input, and the shape of both success and error responses, including the raw/unredacted caveat.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: 'operation' gets format rules plus two worked GraphQL examples, and 'variables' is explained as a dict of values for parameterized operations. It loses a point only because variable-to-placeholder binding isn't illustrated with a concrete example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a raw GraphQL query against the live RSC API') and immediately scopes it to queries-only, which is what separates it from the built-in write tools like rsc_take_on_demand_snapshot. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

Explicitly states when not to use it (mutations are unavailable via raw GraphQL) and names the alternative path ('use built-in tools (rsc_take_on_demand_snapshot, etc.) for supported write operations'). The mutation_blocked fallback behavior is also described, so the agent knows what happens on misuse.

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