quipu_datasets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is known without the description. The description adds real semantics beyond that (non-implicit activation, free overlap, consumption via FROM), but never warns that the `remove` action deletes the named grouping or that `create` records an actor. Adequate, not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the definition and followed by the one operational fact that matters (FROM resolves over members), plus a scoping caveat. No filler whatsoever.

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 four distinct actions (create/list/show/remove) behind a single tool, yet the description never mentions any of them or what show/list return. The concept is explained well, but for a multi-action, destructive, open-world tool this leaves the agent to infer action-level behaviour from the schema alone.

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 fully documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description's only added meaning is the FROM/membership semantics, which is conceptual rather than parameter-level; it does not explain the actor, timestamp, or ordering behaviour of `members`.

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 ('Manage named datasets') and defines the concept precisely as a reusable name over an arbitrary set of graphs, including how it is consumed via `FROM <dataset-iri>`. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from graph-level siblings like quipu_graph_create, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides one important usage constraint ('never implicitly active') and notes that datasets may overlap, which shapes how an agent should reason about them. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to quipu_graph_create, quipu_graph_label, or quipu_graph_list.

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