quipu_graph_label

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is open-world, and is destructive. The description adds useful context that declarations are versioned and that policy tokens describe data rather than authorization. It still does not explain what the destructive effect is, whether existing labels are replaced, what permissions are required, or how failures behave.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with the core action and prerequisite front-loaded, and no obvious filler. It is structurally clear, though it is arguably too sparse for a nine-parameter destructive operation.

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 complex mutation tool with nine parameters, a nested trust object, no output schema, and destructive annotations. The description covers the graph prerequisite and an authorization caveat, but it leaves out most operational details an agent needs, including parameter meanings, effects on existing labels, and return behavior.

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% across nine parameters, including a nested trust object, but the description only touches on graph and policy semantics. It does not clarify kind, actor, trust.iri/chain/rank, valid_to, freshness, durability, or timestamp formats and constraints. With such low schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Declare lattice labels" on an "already registered committed graph." It also clearly routes users to quipu_graph_create first, distinguishing this from graph creation. However, "lattice labels" is not explained, and it does not differentiate this tool from other graph mutation siblings such as freeze, thaw, or events commit.

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?

The only explicit guidance is the prerequisite "Create first with quipu_graph_create," which implies this tool should be used after a committed graph exists. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of graph state constraints such as frozen graphs, and no comparison with alternative graph-labeling or graph-event tools.

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