quipu_import

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: hash/vocabulary/attestation gates and exact-name merges defaulting off, but it does not explain what the destructive staging operation changes or what review entails.

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 compact sentences front-load the staging action and follow with the source constraint and merge warning. The phrasing is dense but efficient, with no filler; only the gate terminology is somewhat cryptic.

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 destructive 11-parameter import operation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers the high-level staging concept but leaves most required parameter meanings, side effects, and the promotion boundary unexplained.

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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only a few semantics: source is copied from quipu_share, not a server path; attestation is a gate; and accept_exact defaults off. The remaining parameters, including actor, manifest, export_ntriples, shapes_turtle, queries_turtle, alignments_turtle, query_namespace, and replace_queries, remain undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stage a portable share' with hash, vocabulary, and attestation gates. It distinguishes the operation from a server file path and hints that promotion is a separate later step, though it does not name the sibling tool quipu_import_promote explicitly.

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?

It provides context that member contents come from quipu_share rather than a server file path, and warns to review before promotion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative for the pre-import review workflow.

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