Finalize contract invariants by binding an independent acceptor. Requires a denial and second-instance approval to ensure integrator review before acceptance.
Seal invariants and bind the independent acceptor (deny+second-instance required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| contract_id | Yes | ||
| base_revision | Yes | ||
| acceptor_actor_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state change ('seal'/'bind') and hints at a requirement, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or what 'deny+second-instance' means.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler—the verb and object come first. The parenthetical is compact, though cryptic, so the structure is efficient even if the terminology is not fully accessible.
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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, this one-liner is incomplete: it omits preconditions, behavioral effects, and clear parameter semantics. The output schema may cover return values, but the input contract and operational context remain under-specified.
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 does not map 'independent acceptor' to acceptor_actor_id or explain actor_id, actor_role, or base_revision. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but with five required parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.
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?
Description uses an explicit verb ('Seal') and names the resource ('invariants') plus the act of binding an independent acceptor. It is reasonably clear, but it relies on domain jargon ('deny+second-instance required') and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling contract-related tools.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use seal_contract versus related tools such as add_invariant, accept_contract, or reject_contract. The parenthetical hints at a precondition but does not explain it or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.