seal_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the irreversible constraint ('cannot be appended to'), the reason (the number is published, so bytes must stop moving), and the hashing rule (sha256 over raw UTF-8, no normalisation) for verifying the returned digest. It omits idempotency (what happens if sealed twice) and any auth requirements.

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-loaded with the action and its effect, then the constraint and verification rule. Slightly dense and repetitive ('same rule as everywhere here', 'exactly as stored') but nearly every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully clarifies how to use the returned digest. For an irreversible mutation with zero annotation coverage, it covers the key behavioral risk; only edge cases like repeat sealing and permissions are missing.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate; it implies upload_id identifies the upload being sealed but never states its meaning, origin (e.g. from upload_content), or type. Minimal added meaning over the bare integer field.

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 a specific verb (seal) and resource (an upload), plus the concrete effect: fixing bytes and publishing sha256 and both lengths. This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_content and get_content, which move or read content rather than freezing it.

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?

Gives clear contextual usage: it must happen before the upload can be used as body_ref ('Only then can it be used as body_ref'), implying upload must precede it. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to seal, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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