quipu_overlay_create

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

The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait not present in annotations: the binding is 'bind-once', so the parent association is irreversible after registration. It also reassures that the committed layer stays untouched, which is meaningful context alongside destructiveHint=true. It does not cover what happens on duplicate/conflicting overlay IRIs, whether the overlay can be deleted later, or any permission requirements, so it only partially extends the annotation set rather than contradicting it.

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 tight sentences: the action and its bind-once constraint come first, then a short conceptual gloss on what overlays are for. No filler or repetition of the tool name. It could be marginally tighter, but every sentence contributes.

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 two-parameter creation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the concept and the key immutability constraint. It leaves gaps an agent would care about before calling: error behavior on duplicate overlay IRIs, whether the overlay is addressable after creation, and lifecycle/cleanup. These are modest but real omissions for a bind-once registration operation.

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 both parameters, including the ROOT default for parent_branch. The description adds no IRI format guidance, no naming conventions for the overlay, and no clarification of the omit/null semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: 'Register an overlay-class named graph' bound to a parent branch. It also defines what an overlay is (a scratch layer over the committed graph), which separates it conceptually from the graph-mutation siblings. It stops short of naming the adjacent tools (quipu_overlay_write, quipu_overlay_compose, quipu_graph_create) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 implied through the workflow sketch: 'write hypotheses into an overlay, read the composed view, and the committed layer stays untouched.' That tells the agent the tool is the first step in a scratch-layer workflow. However, it never says explicitly when to prefer this over quipu_graph_create or the other overlay siblings, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. whether the parent branch must already be committed).

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