freeze_cdp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the most important trait: the tool does not execute the freeze itself but produces an unsigned CBOR-hex transaction for client-side signing, which meaningfully shapes agent expectations about side effects. However, it omits preconditions (CDP must exist and be unfrozen), what occurs once the signed transaction is submitted, and any failure or validation behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and consequence, then appends the crucial delivery detail (unsigned CBOR hex) after an em dash. No filler words; every element contributes either to what the tool does or how it behaves.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply safety, return, and workflow context on its own. It provides the return format at a high level (CBOR hex) and the signing workflow, but stops short of validation behavior, error cases, preconditions, and the full response shape. For a state-affecting operation on a Cardano CDP, a single sentence is adequate but leaves identifiable gaps.

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?

The schema already describes 3 of 4 parameters (address, cdpTxHash, cdpOutputIndex), so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond signaling that they identify the target CDP. The one parameter without schema coverage, 'asset', is equally unexplained in the description — nothing clarifies that it selects the CDP's denomination from the enum values. Near the 80% coverage baseline, the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 ('Freeze'), resource ('a CDP'), and outcome ('prevent further operations until unfrozen'). Among the 60+ siblings, no other tool is a freeze operation, so it is plainly distinct from close_cdp, liquidate_cdp, and merge_cdps. The em-dash clause ('builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing') makes the purpose fully 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 purpose clause 'to prevent further operations until unfrozen' implies the condition for use, and 'for client-side signing' implies a multi-step signing workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which alternatives apply — for permanent termination, close_cdp, liquidate_cdp, and redeem_cdp all exist in the sibling list and are never distinguished from a temporary freeze. Guidance is implied, not stated.

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