Seal text as a KNOBE document

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

Annotations provide little behavioral cue (all false). The description adds transparency by noting the confirmation prompt unless KNOBE_NO_CONFIRM is set, and briefly describes the return format. It does not fully detail side effects like file overwrite behavior (though overwrite param exists) or potential blocking on user input. Still, it adds useful context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is concise (under 150 words) and well-structured with a main sentence, a note about confirmation flow, and an Args/Returns list. It conveys necessary info, though it references knobe_seal_file multiple times, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the high parameter count (12) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides a useful summary of the return structure and core workflow. It omits details on some parameters (e.g., privacy_level, content_type) but refers to sibling tool for consistency. Overall, it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal elaboration beyond the schema: it lists three args (body, title, output_path) and mentions 'remaining metadata fields as in knobe_seal_file'. The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description does not significantly augment understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Seal' and the resource 'text body as a KNOBE document'. It specifies that it handles in-memory text, distinguishing it from knobe_seal_file which seals a file. This is specific and differentiates from siblings.

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 indicates that the tool is for sealing a text body passed directly in the tool call, e.g., the output of a conversion step. It references knobe_seal_file for similar confirmation flow, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or state all alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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