nestor_tool_seal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs a signed, ledgered sealing operation, mints invocation power, records the app_id as verifier, and is restricted by group. This goes beyond a simple 'writes' and gives meaningful behavioral context, though reversibility and error conditions are not covered.

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 three sentences and packs in governance context, the mapping semantics, the restriction, and the lifecycle relationship. It is dense but not bloated; every sentence contributes. Slight jargon ('oracle') could be simplified but it's not excessive.

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 governance write with no output schema, the description explains purpose, target audience, side effects, and how it fits into the routing system. It covers enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it, though it does not specify return values or error behavior. Given the tool's simple signature, this is adequate.

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?

All three parameters (surface, tool, app_id) are given semantic meaning in the description: surface is the natural-language phrasing, tool is the willow verb, and app_id is recorded as the verifier. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is important. It lacks format/example details but covers the essential roles.

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's function: it sanctions a mapping from a natural-language 'surface' to a willow verb 'tool'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself 'the counter-verb to a queued route', indicating its role in the routing workflow. However, the use of 'oracle' jargon and the overall phrasing is somewhat opaque, preventing a perfect score.

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?

It explicitly frames this as a GOVERNANCE WRITE and restricts usage to 'human/attested seats only', giving a clear access boundary. It also explains the relationship to nestor_tool_route ('will then serve') and notes that it acts on a queued route, implying when it should be used. It lacks a direct 'do not use when X' statement but provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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