hero_graphql

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint, so the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool is read-only by default but can write when the server was started with HERO_ALLOW_WRITES=true — a conditional mutation capability the annotations never declare. It stops short of error semantics, rate limits, or query-complexity constraints, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short clauses, purpose front-loaded, then the write-gating caveat, then the discovery prerequisite. Zero filler; every sentence changes how an agent would call the tool.

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 an open-world raw-query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety gating, and the prerequisite discovery step, which is the bulk of what matters. It is slightly incomplete on response shape and failure behavior for arbitrary GraphQL, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'query' has a description ('GraphQL document.') but 'variables' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no guidance on variable binding, query formatting, or depth limits — so at this coverage level it fails to compensate for the gap.

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+resource ('Run a custom GraphQL query against HERO') and immediately positions it as the catch-all fallback 'for anything the other tools don't cover.' This lets an agent distinguish it from the concrete siblings (hero_list_customers, hero_get_project, etc.) without reading any 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 says when to reach for it (only when no dedicated tool covers the need) and names the prerequisite alternative 'hero_schema' for field discovery. Both the usage condition and the preparatory step are stated rather than inferred.

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