seal_memory_pack

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

The description adds some context beyond annotations: it notes that the pack becomes immutable and TTL-bound, and mentions trust level enforcement. However, it does not detail behaviors like idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing packs), or failure modes. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive, so the description adds moderate value.

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 a single sentence of 24 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose and key attributes. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could benefit from a slight breakdown of concepts for clarity.

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 has 15 parameters (11 required) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens after sealing (e.g., how to retrieve or use the pack), prerequisites for roles (sealer_role), or implications of trust level enforcement. The complex domain and sibling tools require more context for correct invocation.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond mentioning 'TTL-bound' (ttl_hours) and 'trust level enforcement' (trust_level, sealer_role). It does not compensate for any gaps, so baseline of 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 clearly states the action 'Create and hash-seal' and the resource 'Governed Memory Pack (GMP)', and mentions key properties like immutable, TTL-bound, and trust level enforcement. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like compose_memory_packs or load_memory_pack by focusing on creation, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compose_memory_packs or distill_memory_pack. The description does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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