quipu_subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully explains the odd conservative classification ('list is still conservatively write-classified like REST') and confirms that creates may reach outside the system. It does not say what delete actually destroys (just the subscription or downstream data), whether credentials are required, or how deliveries are retried, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a destructive tool.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the resource and action set are front-loaded. The phrase 'conservatively write-classified like REST' is somewhat jargon-laden but is the one sentence doing real explanatory work.

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, destructive, open-world tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description is thin: it never explains how to configure a subscription or what a list returns. An agent would have to guess at required fields for create and at the meaning of batch versus realtime mode.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: webhook_url, consumer_id, sparql_ask, mode, types, batch_size, and batch_window_s are never explained. The only overlap is naming the create/list/delete actions, which merely restates the `action` enum already in the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Manage persistent push subscriptions') and enumerates the three supported actions (create/list/delete), which lets an agent distinguish this from event-stream siblings like quipu_events or quipu_graph_events. It stops short of saying how it differs from those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no indication of which sibling to pick for event consumption versus subscription management. The action list implies what the tool can do, but an agent must infer prerequisites (e.g., that create likely needs webhook_url and a filter) with no help from the description.

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