quipu_align_apply

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

Annotations already cover the write/destructive/open-world profile, so the description's added value is the concurrency semantics: recomputing expected_version would always match the set being written and 'silently discard a concurrent operator's decision'. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying what a version mismatch returns or whether prior sameAs statements are overwritten.

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, front-loaded with the 'WRITE.' mode tag, then the effect, then the one non-obvious constraint. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs before invoking.

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 destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the mode, the effect, the graph written to, and the critical version precondition. It omits the failure mode on version mismatch and the shape of the result, which leaves a small gap for a mutation tool.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including expected_version's provenance and the set_tsv source. The description reinforces why expected_version must not be locally recomputed, which is useful meaning, but it adds nothing for actor, graph_a, or graph_b beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb and effect ('Materialise decided alignments as owl:sameAs / quipu:distinctFrom') plus the target ('derived alignment graph'). The 'decided' qualifier and the set_tsv/expected_version inputs make clear this is the terminal write step of the align_propose -> align_decide -> apply pipeline, distinguishing it from the propose/decide siblings.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: only after a decision, carrying the decided TSV and the version from that decision. It states the precondition strongly ('REQUIRED and must be carried from the decision') but doesn't explicitly name align_decide/align_propose as the alternatives or say what to do if the version is stale.

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