Seal an optimization dataset

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

The description discloses that the tool 'locks annotation access,' which is a behavioral effect beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not elaborate on the nature of the lock (e.g., is it reversible? who is affected?) or other side effects, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two clear, concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's action, and the second provides a usage condition. There is no unnecessary information, and the key points are 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present) and the sibling context, the description covers the essential purpose and a usage constraint. However, it omits details about parameter semantics, the meaning of 'locks annotation access,' and any side effects or outputs, making it only minimally complete.

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?

The description adds no information about the two parameters (holdoutFraction and freshTaskConfirmation). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to explain the meaning, defaults, or constraints of holdoutFraction or the required confirmation string, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the tool creates a chronological development/holdout split and locks annotation access. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_development_failures or freeze_prompt_candidate, which have different purposes.

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 states 'Call only from a fresh Codex task that has not seen transcript proposals,' providing a clear condition for proper usage. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, only that it must be called from a fresh task.

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