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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: it requires a paid Mind API key supplied either in the Authorization header or via the api_key parameter. It does not describe the returned structure, but that is a modest gap given the strong annotation coverage.

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: the capability first, then the constraints. Nothing is padded, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it plans, what it does not do, what credentials it needs) all appear up front.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what a 'plan' actually returns — a gate list, gate identifiers, ordering — and it does not. Auth and scope are covered adequately for a 3-parameter read-only tool, but the absence of any return-value characterization leaves a real gap for a planning tool whose output is its whole point.

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 33%, so the description would need to compensate — but it only restates the parameter names already visible in the schema. The enumerated values for change_class and risk_modifiers are self-explanatory in the schema, yet the description never explains how risk modifiers influence the resulting gate plan, how many to combine, or what happens when modifiers conflict with the change class.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource — 'Plan gates' — bound to its two declared inputs (change class and risk modifiers), so an agent knows what it produces. It also pre-empts a likely misread by stating it 'does not inspect a project or run gates', which separates it from inspection/execution tools. It stops short of 5 only because 'gates' is domain jargon never unpacked.

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?

There is a clear negative scoping statement ('does not inspect a project or run gates') that steers agents away from using it for inspection, plus the auth prerequisite. However, no positive trigger is given (e.g. 'call before executing gates on a change') and no alternative tool or ordering relative to a gate-runner is named, so selection is only implied.

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