quipu_graph_events_commit

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by explaining that durability is guaranteed and that passing a lower offset explicitly rewinds the cursor. That rewind note is precisely the behavioral consequence behind the destructive flag, which structured data alone would not reveal. It does not mention auth/registration requirements or error behavior for unknown consumers or unregistered graphs.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero padding, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the rewind caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the bar is moderate and mostly met. However, for a destructive mutation whose parameters are wholly undocumented in the schema, the description should say what happens when the consumer or graph does not exist and whether the operation is idempotent.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. It clarifies that 'offset' has rewind semantics and that 'graph' must be a registered committed graph, but 'consumer_id' is entirely unexplained, and neither the offset's relationship to the graph's event log nor whether consumer registration is implicit is documented.

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: durably setting a consumer cursor in a named graph's event log, with a scope constraint ('one registered committed named graph'). It is clearly distinct from listing tools like quipu_graph_events or quipu_events, but it does nothing to separate itself from the near-namesake sibling quipu_events_commit, so an agent must still infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing indicates this is the write-side counterpart to reading events, and 'one registered committed named graph' hints at a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and neither quipu_events_commit nor quipu_graph_events is named as an alternative.

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