tigergraph__gsql

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context about the intended command types (admin/schema) and concrete examples that imply mutating behavior, without contradicting the annotations. It stops short of explaining output structure or side-effect nuances, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 three sentences with no filler: action first, usage boundaries second, and examples last. Every sentence earns its place, and the hierarchy is easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the return format is undocumented, but for a generic command executor that is acceptable and typical. The description covers purpose, exclusions, and examples; the schema documents parameters; and annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not mentioning that output is raw GSQL output, but this does not impede correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete example values for the `command` parameter (CREATE USER, LS), which is more informative than the schema's generic 'GSQL command to execute.' This pushes the score slightly above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Execute a GSQL command on TigerGraph') and immediately differentiates from the sibling run_query by explicitly excluding SELECT queries. The examples (CREATE USER, LS) further delimit the intended scope, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does versus its siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (administrative tasks, schema modifications) and when not to use it (data queries), and names the alternative (run_query). This is direct, actionable guidance that an agent can follow without inference.

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