quipu_shapes

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses a real behavioral trait: loaded shapes auto-validate on subsequent writes, which is a side effect not captured by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint. It stays consistent with destructiveHint=true via 'remove', but does not say whether remove is permanent or whether a load overwrites an existing shape graph of the same name.

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 with the operation set front-loaded and the persistence/validation nuance second. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical action list partially duplicates the enum and could be trimmed.

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 four-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly sufficient. The main remaining gaps are the effect of 'remove' and the meaning of the unused-in-description 'timestamp' field, but no output schema is needed here.

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 baseline is 3 and the description only reinforces the action set. It adds no meaning for 'turtle' (Turtle SHACL syntax is named) and never mentions the 'timestamp' parameter at all, so it does not compensate where semantics might still be ambiguous (e.g., what timestamp applies to).

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 resource (persistent SHACL shapes) and enumerates the operations (load, list, get, remove) plus vocabulary inspection, which maps directly onto the action enum. It is clearly not any of the dozens of sibling query/graph/entity tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with quipu_validate or quipu_load_ontology.

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 only implied: an agent can infer that shapes must be loaded before they auto-validate on writes, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use quipu_validate instead when Y' guidance or statement of prerequisites. The action list gives some routing signal but no exclusions.

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