freeze_verified_dataset

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails. Freezing is a state-mutating, likely irreversible operation, and nothing is said about side effects, idempotency, or reversibility; critically, the schema's dry_run default of true means a default call performs no write, and the description never notes this.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the precondition front-loaded, so it is structurally clean. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than economy — it is under-specified rather than concise.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the dry_run/seed/records semantics, the gate evidence format required, and the consequences of freezing all remain undocumented.

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 five parameters (seed, dry_run, records, dataset_path, gate_evidence), and the description explains none of them. The only faint link is 'Gate 1-3' versus the schema's gate 1-4 domain in gate_evidence, which is too oblique to substitute for documentation of dry_run, seed, or records.

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 is a precondition clause rather than a statement of purpose: it says when to freeze, but never what freezing actually does (writes an immutable artifact? computes hashes? persists to dataset_path?). An agent must infer the operation from the name alone, and the sibling set (verify_dft_dataset, validate_reference) makes 'freeze vs verify' ambiguous without reading the 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?

It gives one explicit prerequisite ('only after Gate 1-3 eligibility is proven'), which is real usage guidance for gating this call. However, it never routes to the sibling that produces that evidence (verify_dft_dataset / validate_reference) and gives no when-not guidance, so the agent must guess how to establish eligibility.

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