Call through FragGate

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

Without rich annotations, the description discloses a full behavior chain: DecisionGATE evaluation, possible refusal, ResultEnvelope plus ledger tip, and the exact FG-HALLUC-TOOL refusal for unknown names. It does not detail side effects or authorization, but it is far more transparent than a bare mutate verb.

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?

The pipeline notation front-loads the flow and the second sentence packs parameter and error behavior compactly. It is concise and scannable, though slightly cryptic due to the arrow notation.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to attempt a basic call (op/payload/name/slug) and explains refusal, but it leaves ambiguity about whether name/slug is required given the schema marks only op required, and it does not describe the ResultEnvelope or ledger tip shape.

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 already documents op, name, and claim; the description adds that name/slug are alternatives and that payload is passed, and clarifies claim is optional. With 60% schema coverage, this is helpful but does not fully define payload, slug, or the DecisionGATE proposal structure beyond the schema's field list.

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 description names a concrete action—passing a CallEnvelope into FragGate for a handler to process or refuse—and states the result (ResultEnvelope + ledger tip). It clearly implies execution rather than listing or describing registry entries, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

It gives operational guidance ('Pass name/slug, op, payload', 'Optional claim ... Default exec path') and warns that unknown names refuse, but it never states when to choose fraggate_call over siblings like fraggate_verify, fraggate_describe, or runtime_run. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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