quipu_impact

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

The description adds real behavioral context about counterfactual mode, but its closing claim 'The store is never mutated' sits in direct tension with annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so an agent gets conflicting safety signals about a graph-mutating-looking operation. It also does not explain what the tool actually returns (reached set, edges, depth info) despite there being no output schema.

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 core action and then the modifier mode, with no filler. The only weakness is that the final sentence is the one that introduces the annotation conflict rather than clarifying behavior.

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 6-parameter traversal tool with no output schema, the definition never describes the shape of the result (what a 'reached set' contains, how hops/predicates affect it, what ppr scores look like), leaving the agent guessing about output. It does cover the single most surprising mode (remove=true), but the completeness is only adequate.

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 schema already documents hops, predicates, timestamp, and rank_by_ppr. The description only elaborates on remove=true, and even that largely restates the schema's 'speculatively retract the entity before walking (counterfactual mode)'. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds little beyond structured fields.

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: 'walk downstream from an entity', plus the counterfactual variant. An agent can tell this is a graph traversal/impact tool rather than a search or retract tool. It does not name a sibling (e.g. quipu_path_cone, quipu_retract) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one explicit usage cue: use remove=true when asking 'what would break if I removed this?', which is genuinely useful intent routing. It never says when NOT to use this versus the many sibling traversal/retract tools, and says nothing about prerequisites such as the entity IRI needing to exist or graph/namespace selection.

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