quipu_knot_stage

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour the annotations do not: replay is idempotent and changed bytes are refused, which tells the agent retries are safe but byte changes are not. It still omits return values, ordering constraints between parts, and whether a partial stage can be abandoned.

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 action, with no filler. The final fragment 'No file paths' is terse but earns its place as a hard constraint on the payload parameter.

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 12-parameter, 8-required mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the hashing and idempotency contract but not part ordering, how total_parts/total_bytes must agree, or what a successful stage returns. It is callable but leaves an agent guessing on multi-part sequencing.

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 12 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully constrains content_hash and part_hash (must be exact sha256), upload_id (upload identity), and payload (inline, not a path), but leaves actor, graph, source, timestamp, total_parts, total_bytes, and part_number entirely unexplained.

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: staging a single immutable, numbered snapshot part. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from quipu_knot and quipu_knot_promote, though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives operational preconditions (exact sha256 hashes, upload identity, no file paths) but no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and never points to an alternative sibling for a different workflow step. An agent must infer that this is the per-part staging call in a multi-part upload.

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