Write Neo4j Cypher

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description merely repeats the write nature and adds no new behavioral context such as side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The description is enough to choose and invoke the tool with query and params, but it lacks return-value expectations, side-effect warnings beyond annotations, and any usage boundary against read_neo4j_cypher. Given no output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions: it names query and params but gives no extra detail about parameter syntax, injection risks, or expected format.

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 states a specific action ('Execute') on a specific resource ('a write Cypher query on the neo4j database'). The 'write' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like read_neo4j_cypher and get_neo4j_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?

The 'write' wording implies this tool is for mutating queries while read_neo4j_cypher handles reads, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named directly.

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