add_invariant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that adding is drafting-only and becomes frozen after seal, but it does not mention mutation effects, permissions, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or what causes the draft to freeze.

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 single efficient sentence with no filler and the core action placed first. It is somewhat too terse for an 11-parameter tool, but as written it earns each word.

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 11 parameters, 8 required, a nested object, and zero schema explanations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand prerequisites, concurrency via base_revision, actor authorization, or the semantics of negative/second instances. The output schema helps with return shape, but significant context is missing.

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%, and the description gives no parameter-level guidance. 'Machine-checkable invariant' weakly hints at probe_spec and probe_kind, but contract_id, actor_id, actor_role, base_revision, is_negative, and is_second_instance remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 a specific action ('Add') and a specific resource ('machine-checkable invariant'). The phrase 'drafting only; frozen after seal' adds useful lifecycle context, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools by name.

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 a clear temporal usage boundary: invariants can be added only while the contract is in drafting, and they become frozen after sealing. It does not name alternative tools, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-use context is explicit enough.

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