witness_seal_timestamp

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects: the witness signs the hash with its private key, returns a SealPayload, and emphasizes it's an independent third-party signature. It does not detail authorization or rate limits, but for a simple timestamp tool, this is adequate.

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 reasonably concise with no redundant words. It uses line breaks for readability. Could be slightly shorter, but it's well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers input requirements, the signing process, return value (SealPayload), and verification counterpart. It feels complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The single parameter block_hash_hex lacks schema description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying it's a hex-encoded content hash, which is essential for proper usage.

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 timestamps a block using a witness to prove existence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like witness_verify_seal and witness_seal_state by focusing on creation of the seal.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('to create evidence that a decision, claim, or observation predates some later event') and mentions verification with witness_verify_seal. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but provides sufficient usage context.

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