Freeze claim

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description reveals consequential behavior: freezing prevents autonomous capture from superseding the claim, routes contradicting claims to human review, and requires resolve_claim with unfreeze to override. These are meaningful behavioral details not inferable from the schema or annotations alone.

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 tight and every sentence carries weight: definition, strict usage guard, consequence, override path, and idempotence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler or repetitive content.

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 consequential mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call decision: when to use it, what effect it has on future captures, how contradictions are handled, and how to reverse it. Combined with the complete schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains id and project, including the substring matching behavior for id. The description adds context about what a 'claim' is but does not add parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Mark a claim frozen') and defines what frozen means: an invariant that must never change. It also differentiates itself from siblings by calling this 'the one deliberate lock in the model' and referencing resolve_claim for unfreezing, so an agent can distinguish it from capture or record_constraint.

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 states explicitly when to invoke the tool ('ONLY when the user explicitly asks for something to be locked') and when not to ('never on your own initiative'). It also points to the alternative for undoing the operation later: resolve_claim with unfreeze, which is also an explicit human decision.

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