quipu_resolve_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the matching algorithms and disclosing the return shape: ranked candidates with similarity scores and match explanations, which tells the agent how to interpret and act on results.

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 actionable trigger, then mechanism, then return shape. There is no filler and 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 read-only 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and return contents. It is slightly incomplete on what the agent should do with candidates (e.g. whether to pass an ID into merge tools), but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 name, top_k, threshold, and properties are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning, such as how threshold interacts with the two matching methods or how properties shape the embedding.

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: check for near-duplicate entities before writing, and explains the two matching mechanisms (vector similarity and Jaro-Winkler canonical name matching). It is clearly a read-only dedup pre-check, which an agent can distinguish in spirit from mutating siblings like quipu_merge_apply or quipu_align_apply, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 an implied usage trigger ('before writing'), which is genuinely useful context. However, with siblings such as quipu_reconcile, quipu_entity, and quipu_merge_resolve in the same problem space, it offers no explicit alternative routing or when-not guidance.

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