block_seal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites and validates inputs, implying a state-change operation (sealing) that requires verification. However, it does not detail what happens on failure (e.g., if Checkpoint is not fresh), whether the operation is reversible, or what the response looks like. This is moderate transparency for a state-changing tool.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is densely packed with conditional requirements, making it slightly hard to parse on first read. It front-loads the action and prerequisites, but the syntax is complex. Still, every phrase carries meaning without fluff.

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 the high parameter count and zero schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains the core purpose and prerequisites, but leaves many parameters undefined and doesn't mention failure modes or side effects, which would be critical for a sealing operation that likely finalizes a state.

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 for all 8 parameters, but it only explains the semantics of blockId (implied), executionId (must be a successful receipt), and checkpointId (implied by 'that Checkpoint'). It does not clarify the purpose of actor, reason, projectRoot, taskContextId, or includeStructured, leaving agents to guess or infer.

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 the action ('Seal') and the resource ('a verified Block implementation'), and it specifies the completion criteria (valid SourceBindings and a fresh passed Checkpoint). It is distinct from siblings like block_code_mutate or checkpoint_record because it focuses on sealing after verification, not mutating or recording.

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 the conditions for when this tool should be used: when there are valid Current SourceBindings and a passed Checkpoint. It also clarifies the requirement for executionId to be a successful receipt cited by that Checkpoint, which helps an agent decide if it meets prerequisites. While it doesn't name alternatives, the specific conditions provide clear usage guidance.

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