graph_api_call

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it reveals nothing about authentication, permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response handling. It only says to read documentation, leaving the caller to infer that behavior varies by endpoint.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function first and then gives a useful prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 basic action and points the agent to external docs, while the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no behavior disclosure, the description leaves response format, authentication, and error behavior unspecified.

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 all parameters are already explained in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the instruction to consult resource documentation, which meets the baseline but not more.

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 a Microsoft Graph API call.' The resource boundary (Microsoft Graph) clearly distinguishes it from sibling powerplatform_api_call, and the verb + resource combination is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over powerplatform_api_call or other siblings. 'Read the graph-api skill and relevant resource documentation first' is a prerequisite instruction, not a selection rule, though the Microsoft Graph scope implies the intended context.

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