quipu_reason

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context about where writes land ('reserved companion inferred graph, not alongside asserted facts'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations. It still omits whether repeated runs replace prior derivations, any cost/latency of fixpoint evaluation, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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 core action and followed by the two non-obvious facts an agent needs (graph scoping and where derivations are stored). Nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, side-effecting rule engine with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description covers the most surprising behavior (inferred-graph persistence) but leaves two parameters unexplained and says nothing about what a caller gets back or how prior derivations are handled.

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 four parameters, so the description must carry the full burden. It partially explains 'graph' (default ROOT, scopes premises) and hints that 'rules' accepts stored or inline rules, but never says how to distinguish the two, and neither 'prefix' nor 'timestamp' is mentioned at all.

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 names a specific operation ('Run stored or inline Datalog rules to fixpoint and persist derivations'), which is far more informative than the bare name quipu_reason. However, it does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as quipu_rule_query or quipu_query, so an agent still has to infer which one to pick.

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 concrete scoping guidance for one parameter ('Omitted graph means ROOT; pass graph to scope premises'), which is real usage context. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over quipu_rule_query or other query siblings, and no prerequisites or side-effect conditions are stated.

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