freeze_run_set

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral traits. 'Freeze' suggests a persistent mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens to the cohort or snapshot afterward. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool with no annotation support.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the key verb, and contains no filler. While sparse, every word earns its place, and the phrasing is memorable and direct.

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?

The input schema is complex, featuring a oneOf request type with included/excluded members, selection objects, and corpus_commit_id, yet the description provides almost no contextual guidance. An agent cannot determine how to choose between run_ids and members, what 'bounded' means technically, or what constitutes a valid freeze operation. The description is far from complete for this complexity level.

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 0% and the description does not mention the request parameter, run_ids, members, selection, or corpus_commit_id. It offers only a high-level metaphor ('bounded cohort', 'one corpus snapshot') that maps vaguely to the request fields but provides no concrete guidance for constructing a valid request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Freeze') with a clear resource ('bounded cohort') and scope ('against one corpus snapshot'), giving an agent a reasonable high-level sense of the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like compare_run_sets or list_runs, but 'freeze' is distinct enough to avoid immediate confusion.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'bounded cohort' implies a use case, but the description never states when an agent should choose this over other run-set or snapshot-related tools.

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