Graphql Schema Extend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one prerequisite ('requires schema customization module'), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether the extension is persistent or destructive, or reversibility — important for a schema-mutating operation.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the prerequisite trailing. Efficient, though arguably too terse given the gaps left unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and both required parameters undocumented, the description is materially incomplete — it should at least explain what type_name and the fields object expect.

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% for two required parameters. The phrase 'custom fields' loosely gestures at 'fields', but 'type_name' is entirely undocumented and no format, structure, or expected shape for the nested 'fields' object is provided anywhere.

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: 'Extend GraphQL schema with custom fields.' An agent can tell this mutates the schema, distinguishing it from the read-only graphql_schema_get / graphql_query siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never routes the agent to graphql_schema_get or graphql_query as alternatives. The parenthetical prerequisite is a condition, not usage selection.

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