execute_metadata

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. While 'any raw GraphQL query or mutation' hints at arbitrary operations, it does not disclose potential side effects such as schema modifications being irreversible or dangerous, authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a powerful execution 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, tightly constructed sentence. It front-loads the core action and adds a helpful parenthetical scope without any 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?

The tool is a raw GraphQL executor with no annotations and no output schema, so more context would be valuable. The description gives the domain and scope, but it omits risk information, usage alternatives, and expected response behavior, leaving the description only minimally complete for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the query string or variables, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 verb ('Run'), a resource ('raw GraphQL query or mutation against the Twenty Metadata API'), and a scope ('schema management: custom objects, fields, relations'). It clearly distinguishes from likely siblings by naming the Metadata API and schema management domain.

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 implies usage for raw GraphQL operations on the metadata API, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like execute_graphql or inspect_schema. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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