raw_graphql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions arbitrary queries/mutations, implying potential side effects, but provides no warnings about destructive actions, rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond what is obvious.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 tool that can execute arbitrary GraphQL mutations, the description is incomplete. It lacks warnings about side effects, error handling, rate limits, or authorization, and does not mention related tooling like introspect_schema. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more caveats.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (query and variables) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool executes arbitrary GraphQL queries/mutations against Railway's API, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's for operations not covered by other tools.

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 explicit context: use for operations not covered by other tools. It implies when not to use (when other tools cover the operation), but doesn't name specific alternatives, so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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