seal_commit

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, but the description goes beyond this: it explains the single-call constraint, the fence-holder-only restriction, refusal conditions (second commit, wrong fence, expired lease returns isError), and what the cert contains. It does not contradict annotations. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly say whether the operation is atomic or how failures beyond refusal surface, but the behavioral context is strong.

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?

Four dense sentences, all earning their place: state the action, state the exact timing, state the failure modes and alternatives, and list the return contents. Front-loaded with the definitive action and then precise conditions. No filler.

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 three-parameter protocol tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description answers the key practical questions: when to call it, when not to, constraints, refusal conditions, and return contents. Given the safety-critical nature, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for 'fence' (proves the caller), 'intent' (identifies one logical action), and 'result' (digested into cert, keep it small). That adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for 'result', but since the schema already carries full descriptions, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicit about the verb ('Seal'), the resource ('a successful effect'), and its core actions: writes the tamper-evident certificate and closes the intent. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools like seal_abort and seal_admit by stating its exact role in the workflow.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call it once, right after YOUR code ran the effect admitted by seal_admit (fresh=true).' It names the alternative (seal_abort), gives the condition for using it, and explicitly warns against calling either when unsure, routing that case to a witness. No ambiguity about the tool's position in the protocol.

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