seal_admit

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the fresh=true/fresh=false contract, the meaning of a missing cert, the rule not to re-run already-completed effects, and the conflict behavior for retries with the same key but different args. These details are not present in annotations or schema and meaningfully disclose the tool's operational semantics.

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 dense but well-organized: the leading 'ADMISSION ONLY' warning, the alternative tool preference, the outcome contract, and the key guidance are each purposeful. No sentence is filler, and the critical caution is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and a non-obvious once-only admission protocol, the description covers the essential scenarios: winning, already complete, and mid-flight. It also covers the key parameter's reuse semantics and the need to call seal_commit. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the stable-key requirement for money-class actions and the conflict refusal behavior, which clarifies the `key` parameter beyond its schema description. It also gives a concrete example, 'order-777', making the semantics more actionable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Claim the right to run an irreversible action exactly once.' It also distinguishes itself from seal_propose by explaining that seal_admit requires the caller to hold the provider credential and own the effect. The purpose is immediately clear and not a tautology.

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 explicitly says to prefer seal_propose when available and to use seal_admit only when your own code owns the effect. It also gives actionable guidance on what to do after each return outcome, including calling seal_commit and standing down on mid-flight results. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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