create_data_enforcement_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the gate 'checks terms' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens when terms are not met. The deprecation note adds context but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence with the deprecation notice front-loaded. It is concise, relevant, and every element 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?

Given the simple schema (one parameter, fully described) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and usage context. It falls short of a 5 because it does not mention the effect of the 'mode' parameter or any return value, but overall it is adequate.

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% for the single parameter 'mode', with a clear description and enum. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('data enforcement gate') along with its purpose ('checks terms before allowing data access'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_gateway', though the deprecation note provides context.

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 an explicit alternative: 'use gateway.aeoess.com REST API'. Since it is deprecated, it effectively tells the agent not to use this tool and what to use instead, which is clear usage guidance.

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