satisfy_gate

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: evidence has a 5-minute TTL, and structured reasoning is persisted to the audit trail. These go beyond annotations, though some aspects (idempotency, side effects) remain undisclosed.

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 concise sentences covering core action, optional features, and storage behavior. No unnecessary information; each sentence earns its place. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

The description covers main action and storage policies but omits return value (no output schema), preconditions, and relationship to other gate tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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% and parameter descriptions are thorough. The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, such as the TTL for evidence. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Satisfy a gate condition with optional structured reasoning.' It specifies the resource (gate condition) and action (satisfy), and adds context about evidence TTL and audit trail storage, distinguishing it from siblings like 'register_claim_gate' or 'gate_stats'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional structured reasoning but does not outline prerequisites, contexts, or when to avoid using it. Given the many sibling tools, clearer usage direction would help.

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