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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the key is returned only once, a response shape (key, app.id, normalized rules) is named, and — most valuably — it discloses that an example call like "GET /orders/42" is normalized into a rule allowing any id, which is a non-obvious and security-relevant widening of scope. It also warns not to send the admin key to the workload, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded on capability, then the route grammar, then the return value, then the security caveat — a sensible order with no filler. The route-grammar sentence is long and slightly run-on with nested quoting, which costs a point but the density is earned.

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 9-parameter non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, the secret-once caveat, and the credential handoff, which is the essential picture. It stops short of stating failure modes (duplicate name, template prerequisites beyond 'configure the project upstream') or that re-invoking creates an additional app rather than updating one.

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 genuinely adds semantics the schema does not carry: the three route dialects (path params, per-user, concrete example IDs) and the resulting normalization. It says nothing extra about models, per_minute, max_calls, or expires_at, but those are already fully documented in the schema.

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 verb and resource (register an app, give it its own key and permitted calls) and immediately defines the domain concept that the whole tool hinges on: routes, with concrete literals. An agent knows exactly what artifact this creates, distinct from gate_create_project or gate_update_app.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers you call this when provisioning a new workload credential, and that you then send the returned key as a Bearer token. There is no explicit routing advice against siblings — nothing says to use gate_update_app to change routes afterward or gate_rotate_app_key to reissue a key — so an agent must infer the boundary.

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