scaffold-graphql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the primary behavior: generating specific files (schema.graphql and TypeScript resolver stubs). However, it does not mention whether existing files would be overwritten, where files are placed, or any other side effects, which are important for a file-generating tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 covers the core output but leaves gaps: it does not specify file locations, overwrite behavior, or how this scaffold relates to the broader VTEX IO app workflow. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these missing details prevent the description from being fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the schema already sufficiently documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Generate'), specific resource ('GraphQL schema and resolver files'), and concrete outputs ('schema.graphql and TypeScript resolver stubs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scaffolding tools like scaffold-vtex-app or scaffold-node-service by focusing on GraphQL-specific scaffolding.

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 phrase 'for a VTEX IO app' provides some context, but the description never states when to choose this tool over the sibling scaffold-vtex-app or scaffold-node-service. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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