quipu_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered; the description adds real value with 'guarded update endpoint' and the warning that actor/source are declared provenance, not authorization — a non-obvious trap an agent could otherwise fall into. It still omits atomicity, error/failure behavior, and whether updates are reversible, so it is not fully transparent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scoping rules, then the provenance caveat — no filler. Minor cost from jargon ('guarded update endpoint') that isn't defined.

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 tool taking arbitrary SPARQL (including potential DROP/CLEAR), the definition leaves open what happens on failure, whether partial updates persist, and how to recover — important gaps when there is no output schema to convey results. What it does say about graph scoping and provenance is well targeted.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does address all three parameters — 'update' is SPARQL 1.1 Update text with GRAPH-clause scope semantics, and 'actor'/'source' are provenance labels with no authorization effect. It doesn't specify accepted formats for actor/source (URI vs. name) or give an example update, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource: 'Execute SPARQL 1.1 Update', which implicitly contrasts with the read-only sibling quipu_query and with the narrower quipu_set/quipu_retract tools. It never names those alternatives, and 'guarded update endpoint' is a bit internal, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

The description explains how to write the update (explicit GRAPH clauses, default-graph semantics when absent) but never says when to use this tool rather than quipu_query, quipu_set, quipu_retract, or quipu_transactions, nor any preconditions such as frozen graphs or required permissions.

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