artifact_seal

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does it well: it discloses the side-effects (saves document, writes artifact file and manifest to disk) and a prerequisite (require a clean persisted state). Missing only failure/reversibility details, so a strong 4.

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 uses labeled sections (Side-effects, Disambiguation) for structure. Dense jargon like 'content-addressed accepted artifact' costs a little clarity but every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description supplies the prerequisite and side-effect context an agent needs. It leaves out error/rollback semantics but is otherwise complete for a single-param operation.

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% with a single optional destination_dir already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra syntax, default behavior, or directory semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 specific compound verbs and resources (save drawing, copy to content-addressed accepted artifact, write SHA-256 manifest) and clearly differs from siblings like document_save or document_save_as by adding provenance artifact creation. An agent can distinguish it from the raw save tools immediately.

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 says 'Use at completion of milestone or deliverable handoff,' giving clear triggering context. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to the sibling (e.g. document_save) for ordinary saves, so not a full 5.

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