quipu_episode

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description should explain what is destroyed or overwritten — notably that replace_snapshot 'replaces facts previously asserted by this episode' and that shapes trigger SHACL validation. It says none of this, leaving the destructive profile unexplained beyond the annotation flag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity itself is the problem, but as structure and economy go it is clean and easy to parse.

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?

A nine-parameter mutation tool with a destructive annotation, an optional replace_snapshot flag, and SHACL shape input needs more than one line. Nothing explains mutation scope, idempotency, validation failure behavior, or the relationship between the natural-language episode_body and the node/edge payload.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase '(nodes + edges)' marginally signals two of the parameters but adds no semantics about how episode_body, graph, or shapes interact.

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 verb 'Ingest' plus 'structured knowledge from an agent episode (nodes + edges)' identifies the general operation, but 'ingest structured knowledge' is vague about what actually lands in the system. With ~80 siblings including quipu_knot, quipu_retract_episode, and quipu_episodes_complete, the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from adjacent write paths.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (group_id, destination graph, SHACL shapes), and no mention of alternatives such as quipu_knot or quipu_import. An agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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