quipu_graph_thaw

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

Annotations flag this as destructive and open-world, and the description meaningfully adds to that picture by disclosing that the pack file is retained on disk and the freeze registry row is closed rather than deleted, which tells the agent the operation is recoverable/reversible in spirit. It still omits failure semantics – what state the graph is left in if pack verification or restoration fails – and gives no warning about the detach window.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the operation name and the full effect chain front-loaded in the first sentence and the persistence guarantee placed second. 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?

For a destructive multi-step mutation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the sequence of side effects and the durability of artifacts, which is the key missing piece elsewhere. It falls short only on failure/partial-completion behavior and authorization requirements, which matter given the destructive hint.

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% with only three flat string parameters, so the schema already documents graph, actor, and timestamp. The description reinforces that restoration happens "under the same IRI", implying the graph identifier is reused verbatim rather than reassigned, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what is already structured. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Thaw a frozen graph") and then enumerates the exact sequence of effects: verify archive pack, detach, restore history under the same IRI, reopen for writes. This clearly marks it as the inverse of the sibling quipu_graph_freeze, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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 by the phrase "frozen graph" – the agent can infer the tool applies exclusively to graphs in the frozen state. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over alternatives, no prerequisite checks (must the graph already be frozen? what if only partially archived?), and no guidance on the required timestamp semantics.

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