nestor_tool_seal

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive or open-world flags. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it is a 'GOVERNANCE WRITE' that seals a 'signed, ledgered' pair, records the caller's app_id as verifier, and 'mints invocation power'—all of which are side effects richer than the annotations alone. It does not contradict any annotation and meaningfully explains the security implications.

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 a solid paragraph and covers a lot of ground, but the heavy use of stylized metaphor ('oracle,' 'mints invocation power') may reduce clarity. While every phrase carries some informational weight, the register is needlessly baroque for what is otherwise a security-sensitive operation. It could be more direct without losing meaning.

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 security implications, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it (and who should use it), the permission group, and a key behavioral effect (recording verifier identity). It does not describe the return value, but since there is no output schema and the operation's side effects are the focus, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description bears the full weight of explaining parameters. It links `surface` to 'natural-language', `tool` to 'willow verb', and `app_id` to the verifier role, which maps cleanly onto the three required parameters. It could go further with formats or examples, but the meaning is adequately conveyed given the simple string types.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: "Teach the oracle: sanction that natural-language `surface` maps to willow verb `tool`." It is clearly distinguished from the related sibling nestor_tool_route, which is referenced as serving the sealed pairs, and from the implied queued-route counter-part, making the tool's role unique.

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 states when to use it: to seal a verified pair, and that it is 'meant for human/attested seats only,' with a specific permission group required. It also frames the tool as 'counter-verb to a queued route,' indirectly identifying when not to use it. Referencing nestor_tool_route provides a clear alternative.

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