quipu_align_propose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it refuses unknown graph IRIs rather than returning zero candidates and explicitly exposes expected_version for downstream use.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the READ safety marker, states the core action, names the output format, and then adds only essential downstream and error behavior. Every sentence carries useful information.

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, so the description needs to convey return shape; it does so at a high level by naming an SSSOM mapping set and expected_version. It does not describe the scoring fields or full mapping-set structure, leaving a minor gap, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in this workflow.

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%, and the schema already explains the two graph IRIs, including the unknown-IRI refusal behavior. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that two named graphs are involved and omitting mapping_set_id entirely, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: propose candidate cross-graph alignments between two named graphs. It also specifies the scored SSSOM mapping-set output, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling apply/decide tools.

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 gives clear context by noting that the returned expected_version is required by align_apply, which routes the agent into the alignment workflow. It does not explicitly mention when to call align_decide or other sibling alternatives, so it falls short of 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.