quipu_align_decide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context that it "touches no store" and produces an expected_version token for the follow-up apply. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. version mismatch, unknown pair IDs), which keeps it below 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the READ marker and the core action, then the side-effect statement and the return contract. Nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (decided set plus expected_version) and confirming no state is written. It omits what happens on invalid decisions or stale set_tsv, a minor gap for a 3-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so set_tsv, reviewer and decisions are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that decisions are accept/negate verdicts on pairs, which is close to restating the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: apply accept/negate decisions to a proposed mapping set, and names the downrange sibling align_apply. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the analogous quipu_merge_decisions path.

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?

"Apply operator ... decisions to a proposed mapping set" plus "expected_version to carry into align_apply" situates the tool clearly between align_propose (the source of set_tsv) and align_apply. It gives no explicit exclusion of alternatives or stated prerequisites, so 4 rather than 5.

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