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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the app key is returned only once, and routes are stored as enforceable rules. Annotations already imply mutation (readOnlyHint false, non-idempotent), so the remaining gaps (rate-limit interplay, failure modes) are minor.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the return-value caveat, and every sentence carries content. The route examples are dense but place the semantics up front without wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent what comes back (the app key, shown once). Prerequisites are partly covered in the schema, so only routing specifics or rate-limit behavior are left thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully elaborates 'routes' beyond the schema: pattern rules like 'GET /orders/:id', per-user paths, and concrete example calls that become rules. That adds interpretation the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific action: registering one app with its own key and the exact calls it may make. Identifies the return value (the app key) and makes clear this is app-level scoping, which separates it from gate_create_project and gate_add_approver.

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?

Conveys the general intent (give an app its key and rules) but never says when to use this versus gate_set_app_runs or other siblings, nor that project_id/admin_key must already exist from gate_create_project. No when-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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