quipu_queries

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that — load-time validation rules and versioning semantics (re-loading a name closes the prior version rather than overwriting). What is still undisclosed is what remove does (whether closed versions remain retrievable) and whether any operation is irreversible.

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 dense sentences with no filler: identity and call path first, then validation and versioning constraints. Parenthetical clauses are used to pack constraint lists rather than padding.

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 seven-parameter, destructive mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk unknowns (validation at load, version-on-reload). It is not quite complete: remove semantics and what list/get actually return are left unstated.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining cross-parameter constraints the schema states only per-field: every {placeholder} in the template needs a matching param spec, and optional params need a default. That is genuine semantic value for the template/params pairing. It does not explain the dataset-vs-graph activation rule that lives in the dataset param.

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 ('Manage STORED named queries') and clarifies the object model: competency-question definitions that a consumer ships, callable through quipu_ask alongside the compiled-in catalog. That separates it from quipu_ask (which runs queries) and from quipu_query. It stops short of enumerating the load/list/get/remove operations, leaving that to the action enum.

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 rather than prescribed: the description says definitions are shipped with a domain and invoked via quipu_ask, which hints at when to register a query versus just calling one. There is no explicit 'use this when…, use X instead' guidance and no indication of which action to pick for which task.

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