seal_investigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Ingest and attribution disabled; data stays readable with the token.' This goes beyond the simple 'mark read-only' and is valuable. However, it does not mention reversibility (can it be unsealed?), permission requirements, or any side effects on existing tokens. This leaves notable behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then providing concise behavioral details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is an excellent model of conciseness.

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 simple state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the main effect (what becomes disabled/enabled) but omits important context like reversibility, error conditions, or what the response indicates. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail about the result and any prerequisites would make it complete enough for confident use.

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%, with both parameters described. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The mention of 'with the token' relates to access_token but does not enrich the schema's existing explanation. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mark investigation read-only (sealed)') and the resource (investigation). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the consequences: 'Ingest and attribution disabled; data stays readable with the token.' This gives a specific verb+resource and unique behavior, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies the use case: sealing an investigation to disable further ingest/attribution while keeping it readable. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., delete_investigation) or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage is inferable but not fully explicit.

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