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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive, open world). The description adds valuable semantics for each mode, but does not cover side effects, permission requirements, or interaction with existing runs.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then defining each mode. No unnecessary preamble or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides the critical mode semantics. It could mention permission needs or effects on existing runs, but the essentials are present.

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 75%, and the description meaningfully explains the mode parameter ("writes", "all", "off") beyond the raw enum values. The other three parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description compensates well for the one gap.

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 ("make an app need a run") and resource ("an app") with the available modes enumerated. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like gate_add_app or gate_create_run, but the purpose is clear.

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 implies usage via "Make an app need a run" but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider. The implied context is clear enough for an agent to infer it configures run requirements.

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