quipu_graph_create

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

Annotations declare the safety envelope (not read-only, open-world, destructive), and the description adds non-trivial semantics beyond them: the call is idempotent, an existing graph keeps its original creation timestamp and declared actor, and interning terms is not a substitute. The one unexplained tension is destructiveHint=true against an explicitly idempotent, non-overwriting operation, which the description never reconciles.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the prerequisite, then the idempotency rule, then the clarifying exclusion. No sentence is redundant with another or with the schema.

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 three-parameter registration call with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two facts it must: when registration is required and how repeat calls behave. Return values are not described, but no output schema exists and the idempotency note implies the record is stable, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter is already documented, including that actor is a declared creator rather than authenticated identity. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as IRI form, default-resolution behavior for timestamp, or what happens when registering an existing graph with a different actor; the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Register a committed named graph") and scopes it to the graph-registration step that must precede graph-scoped knot writes or labeling, which separates it from the write/label siblings by implication. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the phrasings "knot writes" and "labeling."

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?

Gives clear ordering guidance ("before graph-scoped knot writes or labeling") and one explicit exclusion ("Interned terms are not registration"), which is exactly the kind of when-not signal that prevents misuse. It does not name an alternative tool to call instead, so no fallback routing is offered.

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