envelope_ratify

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

Annotations only provide generic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation, the ledger write (envelope_ratified), the keyring precondition, and the issued_by='root' invariant. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact: access restriction, verifier requirement, ledger side effect, and invariant preservation.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the target state, preconditions, side effects, and an invariant. With only one required parameter, this is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Move a proposal from proposals[] to active[]' gives useful context that proposal_id identifies a pending proposal, but it never explicitly documents the parameter's source, format, or expected values. For a single self-explanatory proposal_id this is adequate but not thorough.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a proposal from proposals[] to active[]'. It also names the exact state transition and domain artifacts (FRANK ledger, issued_by stamp), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling envelope tools like envelope_propose or envelope_reject.

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 gives clear usage context: it is operator-only, requires a verifier/keyring check, and applies to proposals in proposals[] being moved to active[]. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some exclusion logic to inference.

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