quipu_episodes_complete

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

Annotations already declare a write with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description owes the agent context it cannot get there. It adds nothing about what ingestion replaces or merges, whether existing episodes with the same name are overwritten, or what graph-visible side effects occur — precisely the concerns a destructiveHint raises.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and followed by what it accepts. No filler, though 'Graphiti-compatible' is jargon that will not help every agent.

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?

For a five-parameter ingestion tool marked destructive with no output schema, the description leaves too much open: no return information, no note on deduplication or overwrite behavior, and no mention of the timestamp parameter. It is not sufficient for an agent to call it safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enumerates name, body, group, and source, which matches the schema without adding format, defaults, or semantics; it also omits timestamp entirely.

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 a specific verb (ingest) and resource (episode), and adds that it is a 'Graphiti-compatible flat' form that converts to a Quipu episode. That is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish it from nearby siblings such as quipu_episode or quipu_import, so an agent cannot tell which ingestion path applies.

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 guidance on when to use this versus quipu_episode, quipu_import, or quipu_acquire, nor any note about prerequisites or valid group values. The 'Graphiti-compatible' phrase implies a use case but never states it as a condition.

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