quipu_entity_ref

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is known from structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: verify does not fetch, and an uncertain mint response must be reconciled rather than retried. It does not say what a mint overwrites, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the entity when the same keys converge.

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, with the operational vocabulary front-loaded and the safety warning placed last where it is most likely to be read as a constraint. Nothing is padding, though the phrasing is dense enough that the mapping between the three verbs and their parameters is hard to extract.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation tool with nine parameters, 11% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description needs to do heavy lifting. It supplies only a retry warning and a no-fetch note, leaving action-specific parameter requirements and the shape of a mint or resolve result entirely undocumented.

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 only 11%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely fails to. It gestures at the semantics of mint/resolve/verify and the key-triple relationship, but eight of nine parameters (iri, asOf, type, graph, label, source, namespace) get no explanation whatsoever.

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 names three specific operations (mint a typed stable entity, resolve a registered reference, verify a local key IRI) that map cleanly onto the action enum, so an agent can tell what each mode does. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from siblings such as quipu_entity or quipu_resolve_entity, which sound like they cover overlapping territory.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing advice against the many sibling entity tools. The phrase 'without fetching' hints at a cheap local verification path, and the reconciliation warning implies a retry policy, but neither tells the agent which situation selects this tool over quipu_entity or quipu_resolve_entity.

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