mesa_avu_apply_term

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two distinct side effects: a write to the iRODS path and a recorded change in the project's DuckLake. That dual-mutation disclosure is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about required permissions, atomicity/partial-failure behavior if term resolution or the DuckLake write fails, or idempotency, which are the traits an agent most needs for a multi-system mutation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the operation and its outputs, with the sibling-relationship detail placed last where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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 six-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers the full execution path and the shape of what gets written, which is the essential information. It leaves minor gaps around return values and failure semantics, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining how parameters combine: ontology_id and label form the attribute as <ontology>.<snake_label>, and the CURIE is carried as the third triple element. That clarifies the relationship between ontology_id, label, curie, and value in a way the flat schema does not.

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?

Names a concrete pipeline of verbs (resolve, build, write, record) against a specific resource (an AVU triple on an iRODS path plus a DuckLake ledger). It also positions itself against siblings by declaring it is a composite of mesa_avu_from_term + ds_add_avu, so an agent can distinguish it from those two tools without opening a schema.

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 'Composite of mesa_avu_from_term + ds_add_avu, in one call' clearly signals when to reach for this tool rather than invoking the two primitives separately. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when a caller only wants resolution without writing, or wants a raw AVU without ontology lookup), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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