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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the operation is one-way and key-derived (irreversibility), the exact auth paths (Bearer header or leave_token), that a controller-key signature alone is insufficient, and the domain constraint that grithland.com is read-only. These are real behavioral facts the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its consequence in the first clause, then layers auth and domain constraints. It is dense but each sentence carries operational information, though the jargon-heavy phrasing ('blessed auth slot', 'fence refuses those by shape') leans verbose.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: auth requirements, irreversibility, and the delete alternative. Nothing critical to a correct call appears to be absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds auth-flow meaning that the schema cannot: it clarifies the Bearer/leave_token equivalence and explains why controller_signature/nonce cannot substitute for the secret, giving the parameters purpose in the overall proof flow.

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 and resource ('Seals one plaintext bag') plus the mechanism ('key derived from your citizen secret') and the resulting property ('only that secret opens it'). An agent can distinguish it from locker_write, locker_read, locker_purge, and locker_desk without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage ('Use it to protect a bag written on the legacy plaintext path') and names the alternative for the delete case ('To delete a bag use locker_purge'). It stops short of stating when to prefer locker_write over locker_seal, but the context is clear.

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