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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a gating/refusal behavior, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits whether the cutover is reversible, what state it mutates, required permissions, and whether it is asynchronous.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the action front-loaded and the refusal condition immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves notable gaps: what cutover entails, its side effects, and how to identify an agent. The gate/refusal rule is the one piece of genuinely necessary context covered.

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% for the single parameter 'agent', and the description does not clarify what value to pass — an agent ID, name, or gate identifier. The description only implies the agent is the thing gated, adding almost no meaning beyond the bare 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 (cut over) and resource (an agent), plus the precondition that the agent passed its equivalence gate. It is distinguishable from opaque siblings like convoy_disposition or convoy_screen, though the description never says what a 'cutover' concretely changes.

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?

Gives an explicit eligibility condition (passed equivalence gate) and an explicit exclusion ('held or ungated agents are refused'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when the agent is held or ungated, so the routing is only partially complete.

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