request_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a pending gate for manager approval, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what happens after approval, potential side effects, or timeout/revocation behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and purpose. There is no wasted or redundant text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function.

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?

Given no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and high-level behavior, but lacks parameter details and post-approval context. It is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for reliable agent invocation without further inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for 'action' (deploy/migrate/delete/send) but not a full list or constraints. 'Reason' is not described at all. The added meaning is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate parameters without additional knowledge.

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: asking permission for irreversible actions like deploy/migrate/delete/send. It specifies that it sets a pending gate for manager approval, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'confirm' or 'propose' that likely handle different kinds of confirmations.

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 for irreversible actions requiring manager permission but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer context from examples.

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