quipu_propose_schema_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value by stating the proposal does not take effect until explicitly accepted, which explains the gating behavior. However it says nothing about who may accept, what the submission returns, or that the optional migration executes as a single transaction on acceptance (that detail lives in the schema, not the description).

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important constraint. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 an 8-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with a complex migration payload and no output schema, the description covers purpose and gating but omits the submission result, error/prerequisite conditions, and how the proposal is later consumed. The rich schema compensates substantially, so this is adequate rather than complete.

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% and the migration parameter is documented in unusual depth (op vocabulary, expressions, transaction semantics), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the enum-ish parenthetical, making baseline 3 correct.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('Submit a schema evolution proposal') and enumerates the change kinds (new shape, class, property, ontology) that mirror the 'kind' enum, so an agent can map intent to tool. It stops short of naming siblings like quipu_accept_proposal or quipu_align_propose, so differentiation is inferred 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?

'Proposals require explicit acceptance before taking effect' implies the propose-then-accept workflow and hints at the follow-up tools, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer whether an ontology change belongs here versus quipu_load_ontology or quipu_align_propose.

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