trust_freeze

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait ('Fail-closed') and that it activates on a second violation, but it does not say what freezing entails, whether it is reversible, scope of effect, or required permissions for a clearly mutating operation.

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?

Three terse fragments with the trigger front-loaded ahead of the fail-closed posture; there is virtually no filler. The extreme compression costs some clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the effect of a freeze, reversibility, and the meaning of both inputs, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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% and the description never mentions the 'reason' or 'source' parameters. The two params are somewhat intuitable by name, but the description adds no format, allowed values, or meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the compensation gap the low coverage demands.

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 verb 'Freeze' plus the trigger relationship to the sibling no_fake_done ('after a no_fake_done BLOCK') hints at the tool's role, and 'Second catch' positions it relative to a first catch. However, the core domain noun 'the seat' and what freezing actually does are left opaque, so an agent without prior context cannot fully distinguish it from 'decide' or 'land_inject'.

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 states a trigger condition ('after a no_fake_done BLOCK', 'Second catch'), which is a usable when-to-use cue tied to the sibling tool. It names no explicit alternatives or exclusions, and the condition is expressed in jargon that requires inference to map to a callable state.

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